snapshot_create

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write nature, medium risk, reversibility, and auto-handling of ETags. However, it omits details on return values, sync/async behavior, or error scenarios, slightly reducing transparency.

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 efficient, front-loaded with metadata ([WRITE][risk=medium]), followed by a clear summary and bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, risk, reversibility, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks mention of the return value or how to interpret success, which would enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: vm_ext_id is from vm_list, name is the snapshot name, target is optional Prism Central target. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions.

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 'Snapshot a VM' with specific verb and resource, and notes it is reversible by deleting the snapshot. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_delete and snapshot_restore, providing excellent purpose clarity.

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 by stating the action and parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snapshot_list or recovery_point_list. It does not mention when not to use it or provide exclusions.

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