dataset_version_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable nuance by explaining that if the dataset is unchanged, the existing version is returned instead of a new one—this clarifies the non-idempotent behavior and the 'frozen' immutability. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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, both essential and front-loaded with the core action and the important exception. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 simple creation tool with two parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage, accepted reference formats, and the key behavioral nuance. It does not specify the return value, but given the lack of an output schema, that omission is acceptable for a create operation. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions for 'dataset' (slug, owner/slug, or URI) and 'description' (optional note). The tool description repeats the dataset reference formats but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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 action ('Create a frozen dataset version snapshot') and the resource (dataset) with multiple ways to specify it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dataset_version_restore or datasets_get by focusing on creation. The special behavior (returning existing version if unchanged) further clarifies the tool's unique purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (creating a snapshot) and the specific behavior when the dataset is unchanged. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over other version-related tools. The lack of explicit 'use instead of' guidance keeps it from a 5.

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