snapshot_game

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: the write target is the user data folder and explicitly 'never the game folder', the no-op skip condition mirrors idempotency, and the automatic-on-server-start behavior is disclosed. It does not describe failure modes or what a snapshot looks like, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target location, then qualifies with the skip condition and automatic trigger. The long enumeration of captured files is dense but is the actual scope of the operation, so it earns its space; only mild tightening is possible.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers where data goes, what is captured, when it is skipped, and when it fires automatically. The only notable gap is the meaning of the label parameter and any notion of the returned result, both of which matter little given annotations already signal a non-destructive idempotent write.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain force ('Skipped ... unless force=true'), but the label parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store a snapshot of the game state') and then enumerates exactly what the snapshot captures (hashes of Cache/Projects/WarSelection JSON, engine-version.txt, normalized content of gameplay.json, visual.json, etc.). No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable from the search/query/diff tools.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it is skipped when nothing changed unless force=true, and it is taken automatically on server start. That tells the agent when the tool is redundant, but it never states when an agent should call it explicitly or what problem a manual snapshot solves, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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