snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'save' and 'go back to,' which implies a non-destructive snapshot action, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior, uniqueness of names, whether the scene is modified, or what happens when a snapshot name already exists). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 short lines, both earning their place: the English states the core action, the Korean adds usage timing. No fluff, front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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 tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate bus has gaps. It doesn't explain the name parameter's purpose or any behavioral details, but given the output schema exists, return value documentation is not needed. Overall, adequate with clear gaps.

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 for the single 'name' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, giving no guidance on how to name snapshots, whether the name is optional, or what the default '' means. The description adds zero meaning to the schema.

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 a specific verb ('save') and resource ('current scene as a snapshot you can go back to'). This distinguishes it from siblings like restore and list_snapshots, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 Korean line explicitly says to call it 'before an operation you might want to undo,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives by name, but the context strongly implies it is the right tool for creating restore points.

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