Delete snippet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of what is lost, whether deletion cascades, or whether it can be undone. For a destructive operation it should at minimum confirm irreversibility.

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 single sentence is free of waste but is pure restatement of the title, so brevity comes at the cost of all substance. Structure is not the problem; there is simply nothing front-loaded worth reading.

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 destructive, seven-parameter, zero-coverage tool with no output schema, the description supplies none of the missing essentials: identifier requirements, required permissions, or consequences. An agent cannot call this correctly from the definition alone.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions none of them. Worse, the schema exposes fields like title, content, file_name and visibility that look like create/update inputs, and the description offers no clarification on which parameters (presumably snippet_id/project_id) are actually required to identify the snippet.

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?

"Delete a snippet" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, so it conveys no more than the identifier already does. It names a verb and resource, but gives no scope, no distinction from siblings like gitlab_update_snippet or gitlab_get_snippet, and no hint about which snippet namespace (personal vs project) is targeted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no preconditions (ownership/permissions), and no note on irreversible deletion. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name in a sibling set containing dozens of other delete_* tools.

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