Snapshot (write)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it warns that values may be overwritten, discloses that every change is read back from Resolve, and explains how to interpret failure ('receipt.verified=false means it did not take') — a post-condition semantic not present in annotations or schema. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 effect and verification caveat, then a compact bulleted action list. Slightly telegraphic phrasing, but every sentence carries information and there is 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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema covers the return shape, and the description supplies the action roster and verification semantics. Minor gaps remain (what 'label' means, behavior when no timeline is current, whether label is truly optional), but nothing that would block a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%, but the nested op object only pins down 'action' via enum; the per-action parameters live in additionalProperties. The description fills that gap by documenting that each action takes a 'label' and noting the '* = required' convention, which is real added meaning.

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 effect ('Change snapshot state; may overwrite current values') and then enumerates the two concrete actions with verb+resource detail (save/export project as .drp, duplicate a timeline). This clearly differentiates it from snapshot_list and from the generic *_write siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes bulk usage to the sibling: 'Calls known in advance ... ONE batch_run.' It also notes the default target for snapshot_timeline ('current timeline by default'). It doesn't say when to prefer snapshot_project vs snapshot_timeline vs project_write/timeline_write, so guidance is strong but not complete.

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