delete_snapshot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is for deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation prompts, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences earn their place: the first explains the tool and how to find IDs, the second provides usage context. There is zero waste or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given it's a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values. For a deletion tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('workflowId' and 'snapshotId'). The description adds minimal value by referencing 'list_snapshots' for finding snapshot IDs, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific config snapshot'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workflow' or 'discard_draft', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool ('Use list_snapshots to find snapshot IDs' and 'Useful for freeing up space when the snapshot limit is reached'), which helps guide the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'restore_snapshot' for managing snapshots.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.