vm_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the snapshot is 'internal qcow2' and tied to the running VM, implying a non-destructive save rather than a state mutation, and it pairs with vm_restore. It does not say whether the VM must be running, whether snapshots consume disk, whether existing snapshots are overwritten, or what the call returns.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then the paired tool and naming rule. No filler sentences and no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and purpose/usage/naming are covered. However, for a tool whose two required string parameters are undocumented in the schema, the description should have resolved what 'name' means relative to 'tag' and whether snapshotting requires a specific VM state.

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 0% and neither 'name' nor 'tag' is described in the schema. The description compensates for only one of the two: it defines the tag convention (kebab-case, one milestone per tag) and gives examples, but leaves 'name' entirely unexplained, so the crucial name-vs-tag distinction remains unresolved.

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 ('Save an internal qcow2 snapshot of the running VM'), names the artifact type, and explicitly distinguishes itself from vm_restore, which is the natural counterpart an agent might confuse it with. No schema inspection is needed to know what this does.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('before risky operations: installing apps, changing components, registry edits') and points to vm_restore for the reverse operation. It stops short of stating when NOT to snapshot (e.g. disk-space limits, VM must be running) but the operational context is unambiguous.

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