create_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains plan-based limits (Pro=2, Teams=10, Custom=50), error behavior ('Returns an error with limit info if the snapshot limit is reached'), and the manual nature of the snapshot. It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but covers the most critical operational constraints.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides usage context, third explains constraints and error handling. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the 'why' (checkpointing), constraints (plan limits), and error behavior. It could mention what the return value contains (e.g., snapshot ID) or confirmation message, but covers the essential operational context given the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (workflowId and optional label), meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a manual config snapshot') and resource ('workflow's current state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_snapshots' or 'restore_snapshot'. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining what a snapshot represents.

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 states when to use this tool ('save a checkpoint before making changes') and why ('so you can restore later if needed'). It also provides guidance on what to do when limits are reached ('delete old snapshots first'), offering clear operational context.

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