capture_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutation scope and server config, but fails to disclose destructive potential, idempotency, or safety profiles like dry-run or idempotency_key. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and scope without extraneous words. Could be slightly more structured, but it remains concise and front-loaded.

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 high parameter count (8), zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanations of behavior under different modes, error states, side effects, and parameter interactions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, yet the description provides no explanations for any of the 8 parameters. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill fields like repo, mode, or changed_refs.

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 specific action: capturing dated loomweave edges into heddle's local store. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it mutates only .weft/heddle state and never a sibling repo.

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 for local state mutation without affecting siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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