remove_snapshot

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the snapshot is deleted irreversibly and that the VM must be powered off, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical destructive warning and the precondition, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 simple destructive operation with three fully documented parameters, the description is adequate: it names the resource, explains irreversibility, and gives the key VM-state requirement. It does not describe return values or failure cases, but those are not necessary given the schema and annotations.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions: id (VM ID), name (snapshot name), and confirm (must be true). The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action as deleting a snapshot and labels it destructive, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from create_snapshot, restore_snapshot, and get_snapshots. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling snapshot tools, so it misses the top score for explicit 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 a clear usage precondition: deletion is only possible on a powered-off VM. It also warns that deletion is irreversible. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite and warning give sufficient guidance for an agent.

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