update_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that with merge semantics (unset fields retain original values), which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It still says nothing about permissions, what happens on concurrent modification, or how name uniqueness conflicts are handled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and identity, then the semantics. Minor redundancy between the title echo "Update specific snapshot by id" and "Update attributes of a snapshot," but nothing is wasted.

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 narrow partial-update tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies exactly the one thing structured data cannot: merge semantics for omitted attributes. No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior is fully inferable.

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%, including per-field descriptions and length limits for name and description, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description's only added semantic is that body fields are individually optional, which is marginal beyond what the schema already implies.

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 ("Update specific snapshot by id") plus the underlying endpoint, and "Update attributes of a snapshot" disambiguates it as a partial attribute update rather than a rollback or recreation. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (rollback_snapshot, patch_instance, create_snapshot), so it stops short of a 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?

The sentence "You may only specify the attributes you want to change. If an attribute is not set, it will retain its original value" gives genuinely useful usage guidance for PATCH-style invocation. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over rollback_snapshot or create_snapshot, and no prerequisites such as the state the instance/snapshot must be in.

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