delete_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. It effectively describes the destructive nature ('Delete'), the safety mechanism via the 'confirm' parameter, and the two-step warning behavior. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but for a tool with no annotations, this provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters or behavior. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the confirm behavior into the main sentence, but it's well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation, 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral traits (safety mechanism). The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. It lacks details on permissions or error cases, but for most contexts, this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly documents all three parameters ('vmid', 'name', 'confirm') with clear semantics: 'vmid' as the numeric ID of the VM/container, 'name' as the snapshot name, and 'confirm' with its safety role and two-step behavior. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a snapshot from a VM or container'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rollback_snapshot' (which reverts to a snapshot) or 'delete_guest' (which deletes the entire VM/container). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the 'confirm' parameter explanation ('First call without confirm shows a warning'), suggesting a two-step safety pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rollback_snapshot' or 'delete_guest', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the snapshot must exist). The guidance is useful but incomplete.

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