Patch snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the tag-replacement semantics (rather than append) and the 'seal' action example, but it does not explain what happens to omitted fields, since all optional params default to null, nor whether null means 'leave unchanged' or 'clear'. It also discloses no auth or side-effect details.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block with one line per parameter. The leading raw HTTP route ('PATCH /api/v1/core/snapshot/{snapshot_id}') is somewhat redundant with the tool name and consumes space without adding decision value.

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 five-parameter mutation with a covered safety annotation set and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: every param is described and the tags-replacement behavior is stated. It falls short on null-handling semantics for the four optional fields and on enumerating valid status or action values, both of which matter for calling this correctly.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: it documents all five params, notes that snapshot_action is sent over the wire as 'action', gives ISO 8601 format for retry_at, and clarifies that tags are a replacement set. Gaps remain on valid status values and the set of available actions beyond 'seal', but the value added over the bare schema is substantial.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a snapshot') and enumerates the four things it can do: change status, reschedule, replace tags, or run an action such as 'seal'. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the agent must infer from names alone that this differs from archivebox_add_tag_to_snapshot, archivebox_remove_tag_from_snapshot, and archivebox_cli_update.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can reasonably read 'replace its tags' as the bulk-replacement counterpart to the add/remove tag siblings, which is a useful implicit discrimination. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and nothing says whether archivebox_cli_update should be preferred for CLI-style edits.

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