create_access_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: immutability, freezing at access time, and anti-rug-pull permanence. However, it omits important details like whether it overwrites, required permissions, or what happens to existing snapshots.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. 'Anti-rug-pull' is informal but adds semantic value regarding permanence. Minor fluff, but overall efficient.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and complex governance semantics. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, edge cases, or how this relates to the many sibling create_* tools. Significant gaps remain.

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 0% and there are 7 parameters. The description loosely alludes to 'terms, jurisdiction, and constraints', which maps to termsVersion, sourceJurisdiction, and allowedPurposes, but provides no explicit meaning for accessReceiptId, sourceId, compensationRate, or currency. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('immutable access snapshot'), and elaborates on what it does: freezes terms, jurisdiction, and constraints. It is distinct enough from most siblings, though ambiguity remains with similar create_* tools like create_access_receipt.

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. The description implies a use case (recording access terms) but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with related tools such as create_access_receipt.

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