delete_storage_box_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new facts: the deletion is irreversible, requires user confirmation first, and returns an Action object that must be polled via get_storage_box_action until success. That asynchronous completion contract is not inferable from the annotations or schema; only preconditions such as conflicting snapshot plans or error modes are left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the risk warning before the return-value detail. Every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, that it is irreversible, what it returns and how to follow up) with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of the returned Action and the polling loop fills the most important gap for an async destructive operation. What remains missing is small but real for a destructive tool: whether the snapshot must be in a particular state, and what errors look like if the delete is rejected.

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 both id and snapshot_id documented as positive integers, so the description carries little burden. It says only 'a snapshot' and adds no meaning about the pairing of storage box ID and snapshot ID or any format constraints beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a snapshot'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_storage_box_snapshot, rollback_storage_box_snapshot, or update_storage_box_snapshot. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so the differentiation comes from the verb alone rather than from a stated contrast.

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?

Gives one procedural guideline ('confirm with the user first') and a follow-up step ('poll get_storage_box_action'), which is useful. It never says when to prefer a non-destructive sibling such as rollback_storage_box_snapshot or disable_storage_box_snapshot_plan, so the choice between this and safer alternatives is left implied.

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