snapshot_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it adds little beyond the tool's name. It accurately conveys destructive intent and the mixer context, though it doesn't disclose consequences (e.g., cascading deletes, irreversibility, or effects on bound groups). It's sufficient but minimal—no contradiction, but no added depth either.

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 extremely compact—a single sentence plus a short args block—with every word earning its place. Front-loaded with the core statement, then parameter details. Slightly more structure (e.g., MCP server context) would push it to a 5, but it's efficiently written.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description is mostly adequate. No output schema exists and none is needed for a void operation. However, given zero annotations, a bit more context—like whether the operation is reversible or requires a refresh—would improve completeness. It's adequate but doesn't exceed minimum viable.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the target parameter as 'snapshot:/ path or {guid},' which provides meaningful format information beyond the schema's bare string type. It fully captures the two valid reference formats, though it could elaborate on what a guid refers to.

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 resource (mixer snapshot), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like snapshot_create, snapshot_info, and snapshot_rename. The one-sentence statement fully captures the tool's function without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb+resource construction ('Delete a mixer snapshot'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. A clear context exists, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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