createAgentVersion

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description states it saves the current configuration as a version, but does not explicitly clarify that this does not modify the live agent configuration, which is a subtle behavioral point. No annotation contradiction.

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, clear sentence with a non-intrusive tag. No redundant or filler content.

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 operation is simple, schema is rich, and annotations are present. The description covers the core action, but leaves minor ambiguity about whether the current configuration remains unchanged. It is still adequately complete for a create-version tool.

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% description coverage, so agent_id and requestBody fields (name, note) are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific verb 'Save' and a clear resource 'agent's current configuration' with outcome 'as a named version'. This clearly distinguishes the create-version operation from sibling version management tools like list, delete, rename, and restore.

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 implies the use case (saving a snapshot of the agent's configuration) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'Tags: Agents' addition is not usage guidance.

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