vm_snapshot

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

The description includes a warning about potential destructiveness, which matches the destructiveHint=true annotation, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds little beyond the annotation: it does not explain what specifically gets destroyed (e.g., restoring overwrites current state, delete-all removes all snapshots) or clarify that create/list are non-destructive. The annotation already covers the destructive profile, so the added warning is redundant rather than additive.

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 description is a single concise sentence with the warning front-loaded, making it extremely brief and easy to scan. However, it omits the 'delete-all' action, which is both a completeness and accuracy issue, and the warning merely duplicates the annotation, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description only lists a few actions and a generic warning; it does not cover the action enum fully, does not explain the 'yes' and 'live' flags, and gives no sense of what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer or experiment to call it correctly across all supported operations.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions a subset of the action enum and provides no explanation for critical parameters like 'yes' (confirmation), 'live' (live snapshot), 'snapshot_name', 'description', or 'vm_name'. Even though some names are self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, especially for the boolean flags.

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 names a clear resource ('snapshots d'une VM') and lists the main actions (create, list, restore, delete), which distinguishes it from VM-level tools like vm_start, vm_destroy, and backup-specific tools like backup_create. However, 'Gère' is a somewhat generic verb and the list omits the 'delete-all' action present in the schema's enum, so the scope is clear but not fully precise.

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 implies this tool is for managing VM snapshots, which provides basic context for when to use it. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., backup_create, vm_clone) might be appropriate alternatives, leaving usage selection mostly to inference.

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