snapshot_create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the [WRITE] tag, that dry_run previews without creating, and notably that a preview also omits the undo token — implying real creates are undoable via the undo_list/undo_apply siblings.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE] marker and inverse reference, and the Args block is justified given zero schema coverage. Slightly formulaic listing, but no sentence is wasted and the essential information comes first.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive profile; the description covers semantics, preview behavior, and undo-token implications. It omits failure behavior — e.g. what happens if the snapshot already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 carries the full parameter burden and does so: dataset with a path example ('tank/data'), name with a naming example, dry_run with its preview and undo-token implication, and target as a TrueNAS target name from config. All four params gain meaning the schema lacks.

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 and resource ('Create a ZFS snapshot'), gives the exact naming form 'dataset@name', and names the inverse sibling snapshot_delete. An agent can distinguish it from snapshot_list and snapshot_delete without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames this as the write path with snapshot_delete as its inverse, and describes the dry_run preview option. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer snapshot_list first, or behavior when the snapshot already exists).

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