Create Access Snapshot

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

The description states the tool "Create[s] a signed access snapshot," a write of a new stored artifact, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Creating a persisted signed record modifies the environment, so the description's verb directly conflicts with the annotation. 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?

A single front-loaded sentence whose purpose clause ("so a later change to the source terms does not alter what the snapshot records") genuinely earns its place by explaining immutability. No filler, though it is one long sentence rather than a scannable structure.

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?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description omits what the call returns (snapshot ID, signature), what permissions or token are needed, and where the required identifiers come from. The immutability guarantee is covered, but the operational detail needed to invoke it correctly is not.

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 0% across 7 parameters (6 required), so the description must carry the load. "Terms, jurisdiction, and constraints" loosely gestures at termsVersion, sourceJurisdiction, and allowedPurposes, but accessReceiptId, sourceId, compensationRate, and currency are never explained, so an agent cannot infer how to source the required identifiers.

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 signed access snapshot") and goes further by naming what is pinned (terms, jurisdiction, constraints) and when ("at the moment of access"). It is clearly a capture/attestation operation, but it never differentiates itself from the very close sibling create_access_receipt, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (an accessReceiptId is required, implying a prior receipt must exist), and no mention of the obvious alternative create_access_receipt. Only the implicit temporal cue "at the moment of access" hints at context.

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