pbs_forget_snapshot

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable context: the deletion is permanent, on-disk chunks are freed only during garbage collection, and a confirmation flag is required. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies the post-deletion behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place. The requirement statement is efficient.

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 the essential facts for a destructive operation: permanence, garbage collection timing, and prerequisites. Output schema exists so return values are not needed. It does not mention how to obtain backup_time (though the schema includes a format example), but for a simple one-snapshot delete, this is sufficiently complete.

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 description provides no explanation for most parameters (backup_type, backup_id, backup_time, datastore, reason). It only repeats that confirm=true is required, which is already stated in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not. The inline schema descriptions partially mitigate this, but the tool description itself adds no parameter-level value.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete one snapshot', which clearly states the verb (delete), the resource (one snapshot), and the permanence. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pbs_prune (which deletes multiple snapshots per policy) and pbs_protect_snapshot (which prevents deletion).

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 indicates this is for deleting a single snapshot and lists prerequisites (PBS_ALLOW_WRITE=true, confirm=true). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with pbs_prune, the 'one snapshot' phrasing makes the use case clear. It could improve by explicitly saying 'Use this for deleting a single snapshot, not for bulk pruning.'

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