tenki_create_snapshot

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it captures disk and memory, excludes attached volumes, and the snapshot is reusable. It does not contradict annotations and discloses a key limitation (volumes not captured). However, it does not mention potential side effects like cost, timing, or whether the sandbox continues running, though these are not critical given the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, includes a critical caveat (volumes not captured) in parentheses, and ends with a direct pointer to the consuming tool. Every word earns its place with no 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 create operation with four parameters (all documented in the schema) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the volume limitation, and the reuse path. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, though it could mention prerequisites like the sandbox must be running (implied by 'running sandbox') or that the snapshot creation is asynchronous. These are minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema fully documents name, expires_at, session_id, and store_raw_image. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action (capture a running sandbox's disk and memory as a reusable snapshot) and the resource (a sandbox session). It explicitly notes attached volumes are NOT captured, distinguishing it from volume-related operations, and points to the consuming tool (tenki_create_sandbox) for reuse. This is a specific verb+resource that separates it from the many snapshot-management siblings.

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 gives a workflow hint (boot a new sandbox later with tenki_create_sandbox + snapshot_id) and notes the volume limitation, but it does not explicitly contrast with other snapshot tools (e.g., list, get, update, delete) or state when not to use this tool. The context is implied rather than explicit, so an agent must infer that this is the only creation operation among snapshot siblings.

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