recreate_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 says nothing about whether the operation is destructive, what it does to existing snapshots, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. For a mutation-like operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a severe gap.

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 only two words, which is concise but drastically under-specified rather than efficient. It is not front-loaded with any useful information because it contains no information beyond the tool name. This is the same issue as the calibration example 'Process' that scored 2 for being under-specified.

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 complexity of the snapshot tool family, the absence of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, when to use it, or how to call it correctly based on the provided text.

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?

There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. It is unclear whether this id refers to a snapshot, a container, or another resource. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Recreate snapshot' merely restates the tool name without adding any distinguishing detail. It does not clarify what 'recreate' means relative to siblings like create_snapshot, recover_snapshot, load_snapshot, or import_snapshot. This is a tautology rather than a useful purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when or why to use this tool instead of the many other snapshot-related siblings. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are mentioned. The agent must guess entirely from the name.

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