Create a document version

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

With no readOnly or destructive hints in annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the result (immutable version) and its implications (only way back, drawings require version). While it doesn't cover permissions or return format, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure prioritizes the most decision-relevant information first.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains the action, its consequence (immutability), and when to use it. It lacks details on return value or potential errors, but those are less critical for a straightforward creation tool with well-documented parameters. The context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 documentation covers all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, so the schema already explains each field. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline 3. It does hint at the purpose of 'name' via 'what is about to change' in the schema, but the description itself offers no additional parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Snapshot the workspace as an immutable version') and the resource (workspace). It also conveys the purpose (creating a safe, immutable checkpoint) and distinguishes it from other version-related operations by emphasizing immutability and its role as the only way back.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Do this before restructuring an existing design'. It explains the rationale ('only way back' and 'drawings must reference a version'), giving clear contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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