create_vm_snapshot

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

The annotation provides a destructiveHint of false, indicating the operation is safe. However, the description does not add any behavioral details beyond that, such as whether the snapshot includes memory state, whether the VM must be stopped, or whether there are quota or naming constraints. This leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral traits.

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 very concise, consisting of a single short sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is almost too terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Still, it adheres to the principle of being appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain that the snapshot is a point-in-time copy, whether it can be used for rollback, or any constraints like requiring the VM to exist or snapname uniqueness. The annotations provide minimal safety context, but the description fails to fill remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'snapshot of a VM', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a snapshot entails (e.g., disk state vs memory), which could differentiate it further from siblings like 'clone_vm' or 'create_backup_job'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rollback_vm_snapshot' or 'run_backup'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist, unique snapname) or context where this tool is appropriate.

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