Snapshot Project

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

Despite annotations already indicating destructive/write behavior, the description adds valuable context about the side effects: 'renders board to PDF and records step label.' It also explains the workflow role, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences quickly convey the action, the context, and the workflow need. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is part of an explicit workflow and the description explains when to invoke it. With an output schema and annotations present, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it, though file-naming behavior is only hinted at in the schema.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. The description reinforces meaning with examples like 'schematic_ok' and 'layout_ok' but does not add significant new information beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Save a named checkpoint snapshot of the current project state (renders board to PDF and records step label).' This distinguishes it from sibling save/export tools by emphasizing the checkpoint-specific behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Call after completing each major step — e.g. after Step 1 (schematic_ok) and Step 2 (layout_ok).' It also notes it is 'Required by the demo workflow before waiting for user confirmation,' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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