Destroy ZFS Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so most of the safety profile is structured data. The description's only real addition is the '(sudo)' note, which tells the agent elevated privileges are required, plus the word 'Permanently' reinforcing irreversibility. Useful but thin.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive/privilege qualifiers front-loaded inline. Zero waste and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials — permanent deletion, sudo requirement — are all present. Missing notes on failure cases (clones, nonexistent snapshots) are the only gap.

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 100% ('Snapshot name in dataset@snapname format'), so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond it, which makes 3 the correct baseline.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a ZFS snapshot'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from the sibling zfs_create_snapshot and zfs_list_snapshots. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative the way a 5 would.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must list snapshots first to get the exact dataset@snapname), no mention that snapshots with dependent clones cannot be destroyed. The agent is left to infer the workflow from the name alone.

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