create_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a snapshot but lacks critical details: it does not specify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects VM/container availability, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden on the description, but overall it falls short of being fully informative for safe and effective use.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'vmid' as the numeric ID of the VM/container, 'name' with format constraints (alphanumeric, hyphens, underscores), and 'description' as optional. However, it does not cover all potential semantics, such as valid ranges for 'vmid' or effects of the snapshot creation, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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 new snapshot') and the target resource ('for a VM or container'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_backup' or 'rollback_snapshot', which might involve similar snapshot-related operations, leaving some room for confusion in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'create_backup' (for backups) or 'rollback_snapshot' (for reverting to snapshots), nor does it specify prerequisites like VM/container state or permissions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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