Delete Code Backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the approval prerequisite and the double-confirmation mechanism via confirmSnapshotId, which the agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the safety constraint.

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 two-param tool with an output schema (return values not needed), the description covers the action, the approval gate, and the confirmation requirement. Complete enough to invoke safely, though it could note that the deletion is irreversible/not undoable and options for recovery.

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 0%, so the schema itself only says both params are UUIDs. The description partially compensates by explaining that confirmSnapshotId must repeat the exact snapshotId, but it leaves the snapshotId parameter and the confirm-matching semantics under-specified.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete one backup'), making the destructive action unambiguous and distinct from siblings like create_project_snapshot or restore_project_snapshot. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the delete semantics are unique enough to differentiate.

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?

Gives a clear pre-condition ('Call only after explicit user approval'), which is strong when-to-use guidance for a destructive tool. It stops short of pointing to alternatives (e.g., deactivate_project for a reversible action), so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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