cortex_snapshot_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that snapshots are deduplicated and copy-on-write (implying cheap, low-storage checkpoints), which encourages frequent use. But it says nothing about required permissions, what the call returns, or how the created snapshot is later referenced, so significant gaps remain.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with every clause earning its place (what is created, how it is implemented, and when to call it). There is no filler or 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?

For a snapshot-creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one optional param, the description covers the what and the when. It omits the natural lifecycle linkage to cortex_snapshot_rewind (how to restore) and any indication of the returned handle, which an agent would need to use the snapshot afterwards.

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% and the description never mentions the single 'label' parameter, so it adds no semantic detail. The impact is limited because the parameter is optional with a sensible default ('Agent pre-edit checkpoint'), keeping the stakes low, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a ... workspace snapshot') with meaningful qualifiers ('deduplicated copy-on-write'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly name the complementary sibling cortex_snapshot_rewind or contrast itself against it, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It supplies a concrete trigger condition: invoke this 'before executing risky multi-file edits.' That is real usage guidance, not just a restatement of purpose. However, it offers no explicit exclusions (e.g., when a snapshot is unnecessary) and no named alternative, so it falls short of 5.

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