save_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'save' (mutation), but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing snapshots, reversibility, or any permissions/rate limits. The note about 'next session taking over' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes a parenthetical clarifying the semantic context. It is efficient without unnecessary detail, though it could have added a sentence on usage without harming 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists (though not shown). However, the description lacks critical details like whether snapshot names must be unique or whether saving overwrites existing snapshots. Given the absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name and description). The description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage. No gaps in parameter understanding exist.

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 (save snapshot), the resource (this session's graph), and adds context that it marks the point for the next session to continue. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_snapshot and list_snapshots by focusing on the save action.

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 when to use it (when you want to preserve the graph state for a future session) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like load_snapshot for restoring or list_snapshots for viewing. No exclusions or conditional guidance are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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