delete_file_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation 'cannot be undone' and that it deletes 'associated files,' which is important destructive-behavior context. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on history, or whether the deletion is permanent across sessions, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds an important warning. It is succinct and well-structured, with no filler words.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the scope (including associated files), and the irreversible nature. It is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from mentioning permission requirements or the effect on related snapshots. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is mostly adequate.

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 describes snapshotId as 'ID of the snapshot to delete,' providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema, simply referring to 'a specific file snapshot.' With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra context is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the exact resource ('a specific file snapshot and its associated files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like restore_file_snapshot, create_file_snapshot, and list_file_snapshots, which have different operations.

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 includes a caution about irreversibility but does not mention any conditions for use or suggest an alternative (e.g., restore_file_snapshot) for recovering deleted content. There is no explicit 'when to use' context.

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