snapshot_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '删除快照' (delete snapshot) implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 brief with a purpose statement and parameter list, but it's not optimally structured. The purpose is overly concise (just two words), and the parameter section could be integrated more smoothly. While not verbose, it lacks front-loading of critical information and feels minimally composed rather than efficiently informative.

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 destructive nature (deleting snapshots), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, success/error responses, or contextual nuances (e.g., impact on backup strategies). For a mutation tool in a complex system like Elasticsearch, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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 lists the two parameters ('repository' and 'snapshot') with Chinese labels, which adds basic semantic context beyond the schema's English titles. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., repository as a configured snapshot repository name, snapshot as a specific snapshot within it) or provide format examples. It partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 '删除快照' (delete snapshot) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'snapshot_delete' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of snapshot is being deleted (Elasticsearch repository snapshot), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_delete' (which deletes snapshot repositories rather than snapshots themselves). The purpose is stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions, or related tools like 'snapshot_get' (to check snapshots first) or 'snapshot_restore' (which might be an alternative action). The parameter list is included but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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