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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive write (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds real value beyond that by stating earlier versions are preserved and remain instantiable, which tells the agent prior state is not lost.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: what it does, a preservation guarantee, and the usage trigger. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, scope and preservation semantics adequately. It could note what is returned (e.g. the new version identifier) or that the target profile must already exist, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so cluster_id, profile_id/profile_name, stack_name, changelog and include_addon_configurations are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (snapshot/save) and resource (an existing stack profile as a new version), and the phrase 'as a NEW VERSION of an existing stack profile' distinguishes it from create_stack_profile and instantiate_stack_profile without needing their schemas.

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 final sentence gives clear context: 'Use when the user updated a stack and wants the profile to reflect the new state.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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