create_snapshot

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral detail. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: DTG replacement instead of stacking, numeric suffixes on collisions, no auto-pruning, manage_backups never touching snapshots, and the source file not being modified. These go well beyond the annotations and add significant safety-relevant context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then packs multiple distinct rules into a compact block. Every sentence carries information, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 main behavior and safety properties are well covered, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the dest_dir parameter's meaning and default behavior are absent, which is a noticeable gap. An agent could still call the tool correctly, but not with full confidence about where snapshots land.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the file_path role and the optional short label, but it never mentions the dest_dir parameter at all. One of three parameters remains semantically unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the empty 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save a DTG-stamped permanent copy' and an exact naming format. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that snapshots are permanent keepers that 'manage_backups never touches,' so an agent can tell it apart from rotation/backup tools without opening schemas.

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 explicitly advises 'Take one before any large or risky editing pass,' giving a clear when-to-use condition. It also contrasts snapshots with automatic prev/anchor slots and manage_backups, which routes an agent away from alternatives. It does not enumerate every sibling exclusion, but the context is strong.

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