create_storage_box_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the snapshot_limit cap that can cause failure, and the fact that the call is asynchronous and returns an Action requiring polling before details are readable. It loses a point for the garbled, duplicated return clause ('Returns {snapshot: {id, storage_box}, action}; Returns an Action'), which muddies what the immediate response actually is.

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 purpose and the limit constraint are correctly front-loaded and the total length is short. However, the return-value portion is redundant and self-contradictory, stating the return shape twice in slightly different forms, which costs clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape and the async polling workflow, which is the most important gap to fill. It is still incomplete for a three-parameter mutation whose optional 'labels' and 'description' fields are described nowhere.

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 coverage is only 33%: only 'id' has a description ('Storage Box ID'). The 'labels' nested object and 'description' parameter are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description provides no parameter guidance at all. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a manual snapshot') and adds the key qualifier 'manual', which separates it from plan/schedule-driven snapshot creation among the siblings. It does not explicitly name a distinguishing alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the precondition (limited by the type's snapshot_limit) and prescribes the follow-up sequence: poll get_storage_box_action until status is success, then call get_storage_box_snapshot. That is clear actionable context, though it gives no explicit 'when not to use' or guidance versus create_snapshot.

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