delete_prompt_snippet

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behaviors: destructive but soft-delete (recoverable), hidden from list until restored, requirement to read version first, and detailed 409 error causes. This goes beyond basic 'delete' and prepares the agent for expected outcomes and error recovery.

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 concise and structured, starting with a clear one-line purpose, then key behavioral facts, a prerequisite instruction, and error handling. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers all necessary context for a deletion operation with versioning and soft-delete: destructiveness, recoverability, list behavior, version reading requirement, and conflict handling. It is complete given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and includes descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds 'Read it first for its version' reinforcing the expectedVersion parameter's purpose and the confirm requirement. However, it does not provide substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Delete a prompt_snippet', clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling restore_prompt_snippet by explicitly mentioning recoverability. The verb is specific, and the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides implicit usage guidance by discussing recoverability and the availability of restore_prompt_snippet. It also advises reading the prompt_snippet first for its version and explains how to handle 409 errors (stale version vs. reference conflict). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternative delete operations, but the context is sufficient for informed use.

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