snapshot_repo_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated snapshots, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 concise with two lines: a purpose statement and parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the parameter section uses minimal formatting and could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'deleting a snapshot repository' entails (metadata only? snapshots too?), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity and risk profile, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 'name: 仓库名称' (name: repository name), which adds basic semantic context for the single parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format constraints, validation rules, or examples. The parameter documentation is minimal and doesn't fully address the schema 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 states '删除快照仓库' (delete snapshot repository), which provides a clear verb ('delete') and resource ('snapshot repository'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_create' or 'snapshot_delete', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific deletion tool versus others in the snapshot/repository family.

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. There are multiple snapshot-related tools (snapshot_delete, snapshot_repo_create, snapshot_repo_get, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate whether this deletes the repository metadata, all snapshots within it, or when it should be used over other deletion tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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