Start Memory Snapshots

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: enforcement of 'manage-snapshots' and creator authority, how to distinguish an environmental configuration error from an authorization denial, and the limitation on altering the global snapshot rate. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with the core action, then provides short, useful notes on permissions, error interpretation, and a boundary on what the tool cannot do, followed by the argument definition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no padding.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is largely complete: it states the action, the target resource, the required parameter, authorization expectations, and a common error condition. It does not describe the success response format or what happens if snapshots are already running, but those are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 only says 'keyspace' is a required string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining the parameter as 'Explicit in-memory keyspace to snapshot' and by stating earlier that it must be an existing keyspace. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it could be even more specific about naming conventions or how to discover valid keyspaces.

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 uses the specific verb 'Start scheduled snapshots' and names the exact resource: 'one existing in-memory keyspace.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling stop_snapshots and clean_snapshots tools, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening other definitions.

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 clear context about when this tool is applicable: it starts scheduled snapshots for an existing in-memory keyspace. It also provides an important exclusion ('cannot alter the global snapshot rate') and explains how to interpret a 'Snapshot rate is not set' response. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling tool.

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