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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a concrete rate limit (one per 10 minutes per project), an auth requirement (read-write token), and the fact that it captures the canonical production commit rather than a draft. These are operational facts the agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, dashboard analogue, plan availability, rate limit, auth), with the core action front-loaded and 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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, rate limit, token requirement, and plan availability. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing material 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the pointer to list_projects. The description's mention of 'a project's canonical commit' reinforces what the id selects but adds no new syntax or format 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 ('take a restore-point snapshot') plus the exact resource and scope ('a project's canonical (production) commit'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like promote_commit, deploy_project, or rollback_commit. The 'right now' framing makes the immediacy explicit.

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 strong context for when to reach for it: the dashboard 'Snapshot now' equivalence, availability on every plan, and the one-per-10-minutes rate limit. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion condition (e.g., when to prefer rollback or promote instead), so it is not a full when/when-not pair.

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