Delete snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the deletion semantics are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context in the form of the required auth scope and API key tier, which is exactly the kind of permission information annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent or whether snapshots must be in a particular state.

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 short sentences, verb and resource front-loaded, with the prerequisite as a second clause. Every word earns its place and there is 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?

No output schema exists, but this is a simple destructive call whose safety profile is carried by annotations and whose parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining omission is whether the delete is irreversible and what error surfaces if the snapshot is in use, which is minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%: both orderNo and snapname carry patterns, length limits, and an example, including a pointer back to list_snapshots. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Delete) and resource (Cloud VPS KVM/VDS disk snapshot), which scopes it against the near-identical delete_firecracker_snapshot and rollback_snapshot siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the disambiguation is left to the reader's inference rather than stated.

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 supplies a prerequisite (services:manage scope plus a full-access API key) but gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g. rollback_snapshot for reverting rather than removing. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explained.

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