createAgentVersion

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the concept of taking a snapshot of current configuration, which is useful but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing version with the same name, limits on versions, or permissions required). It does not contradict 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 sentence with a tag, which is very concise. It wastes no words, but the tag '(Tags: Agents)' adds little value. The information is front-loaded, but slightly more detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., the created version object or ID). For a creation tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what to expect as a response. Prerequisites (agent existence) are also implied but not stated.

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%, so the schema already documents agent_id and requestBody (including name and note). The description reinforces that the version is a snapshot of the current configuration, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool saves the agent's current configuration as a named version, using a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('agent's current configuration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createAgent, updateAgent, listAgentVersions, and restoreAgentVersion by focusing on version creation as a snapshot.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the agent must already exist, that this should be called after updating configuration, or that it is distinct from listAgentVersions or restoreAgentVersion. The agent has no context to decide when to invoke this tool.

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