create_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: persistence (until explicitly deleted) and ongoing storage charges, which is important for cost-aware decision-making. It also mentions future usability via snapshot_id. However, it omits any operational constraints, such as whether the devbox must be running or stopped, whether the operation is synchronous, or any side effects on the devbox itself. This leaves uncertainty about when it is safe to invoke.

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, first stating the action and second providing persistence/cost context and future use. Every sentence contributes valuable information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the purpose, the lasting consequences (charges, persistence), and the downstream use case. It benefits from an output schema and fully described parameters, so the main gaps are operational prerequisites and error conditions. Given the tool's moderate complexity and cost implications, the description is largely complete but would benefit from a note about devbox state requirements.

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?

All four parameters are already described in the input schema with clear descriptions (e.g., devbox_id as 'The id of the devbox to snapshot'). The description adds no additional meaning for these parameters; it only references snapshot_id for later creation, which is an output or another tool's parameter. Given the schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Create a disk snapshot of a devbox's current state,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_snapshots and create_devbox by explicitly focusing on snapshot creation and noting the snapshot can later seed a new devbox via snapshot_id.

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 warning that snapshots persist and accrue storage charges until explicitly deleted gives clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., for long-term state preservation) and implicitly advises against excessive use. It also notes that a new devbox can be created from the snapshot, suggesting a specific workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_snapshots or conditions where other tools should be preferred.

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