delete_prompt_snippet_version

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the action is permanent, protected versions cannot be targeted, and the deleted version is recoverable via restore tool until purged. This adds significant value beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without any redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a delete operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, constraints (protected versions), recoverability, and acknowledges destructiveness via the confirm parameter (already in schema). No gaps.

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% with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, 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 clearly states it permanently removes one entry from a prompt_snippet's version history. It identifies the specific resource (version history) and action (delete), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_prompt_snippet (which deletes the entire snippet) by focusing on a single version entry.

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 clear context on when to use: for removing a version entry. It implicitly excludes the working draft and published version, which are protected. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., delete_prompt_snippet) or state when not to use it beyond the protected versions.

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