save_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action and destination but does not mention whether existing snapshots are overwritten, naming conventions, permissions, or the expected payload structure. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool's name and action.

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 sentence that directly states the action and location. It contains no redundant words, is front-loaded with the verb, and every part adds value. The structure is efficient and clear.

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 has two parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, return behavior, and any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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?

The description provides no information about the 'label' or 'payload' parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but did not. The example hints that payload might relate to ecosystem status, but this is not explicit, leaving parameter meaning entirely unexplained.

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 tool saves a historical snapshot to a specific directory, using the verb 'Guarda' and resource 'snapshot histórico'. The example 'ej: de ecosystem_status' clarifies the intended use, and the destination path adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecosystem_status, which presumably reports rather than saves.

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 usage through the example 'de ecosystem_status' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this tool over others, nor does it describe exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not fully specified.

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