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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool is additive, runs retention cleanup, restricts viewers, and returns NO_VOLUME if the site has no volume. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, the description clarifies the primary action is non-destructive to served files, though cleanup may delete old snapshots. This is a nuanced addition.

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 concise at four sentences, each adding distinct information: action, additive nature, side effects, restrictions, and error condition. Some repetition exists between the first two sentences, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's core behavior, side effects, and a specific error condition. However, it omits details about the output schema (though present but not shown) and leaves the parameter semantics incomplete. For a backup creation tool, it provides adequate but not thorough context.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about the 'name' or 'siteId' parameters, and the 'label' parameter is already described in the schema. The description fails to explain the purpose or constraints of these parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates a point-in-time Longhorn snapshot of a site's served files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's a manual backup, is additive, and does not alter served content. The mention of viewer restrictions further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage for creating backups but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions a return condition (NO_VOLUME) but lacks comparative context with other tools like list_snapshots or deploy.

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