pve_delete_container_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, whether it affects the container's state, what permissions are required, or what happens if the snapshot is in use. The description mentions nothing about error conditions, rate limits, or return values. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There's no wasted language, but it fails to provide necessary context. It's structured as a simple verb-noun phrase without any explanatory clauses.

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 operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, what the force parameter actually does, or how this tool differs from similar deletion tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context beyond the bare 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema properties. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Delete container snapshot' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'pve_delete_vm_snapshot' or explain what a 'container snapshot' is in this context. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the description lacks the detail needed to understand the resource being operated on beyond what's obvious from the name.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing snapshot), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pve_delete_vm_snapshot' or 'pve_rollback_container_snapshot'. The agent receives zero contextual usage information.

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