Create Version

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

Annotations already establish this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: versions are immutable snapshots, and 'Once created, versions cannot be modified' warns the agent of a permanent consequence. This is consistent with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, with no 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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: the core action is front-loaded, the second sentence explains what a version is, and the third states the critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description adequately conveys the semantics and the immutable nature of the created artifact. A minor gap is the absence of guidance on prerequisites or sequencing relative to update_script_content, but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (script_id, description, user_google_email) are already documented structurally. The description adds minimal param-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the snapshot captures 'current script code' for the given script project. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Creates a new immutable version of a script project') and adds the key attribute 'immutable'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_versions, get_version, create_script_project, and update_script_content, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 — 'Versions capture a snapshot of the current script code' suggests you call this when you want to freeze the current code state. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., when you need to modify code first via update_script_content, or when you simply want to view versions via list_versions).

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