create_access_snapshot

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: immutability, freezing of terms/jurisdiction/constraints, and anti-rug-pull purpose. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or state changes. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with purpose and key characteristics. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 brief given the tool's complexity: 7 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and no sibling differentiation. It lacks return value description, parameter relationships, and usage context. Incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The terms 'terms, jurisdiction, constraints' are mentioned conceptually but not mapped to actual parameters like accessReceiptId, sourceId, etc. The description adds no 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 clearly states the tool creates an immutable access snapshot that freezes terms, jurisdiction, and constraints, with the explicit purpose of 'anti-rug-pull'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_receipt or create_decision_lineage_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_access_receipt or other snapshot tools. The description implies a use case but does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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