create_snapshot

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this is asynchronous and must be tracked via check_task — information annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing timing, failure modes, or what happens to existing snapshots.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the async nature, then the tracking tool. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it does, that it is async, and how to poll it. Only minor gaps remain, such as state prerequisites or behavior on an already-snapshotted VM.

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 100%, so id, name, and confirm are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. naming rules or what confirm guards against), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a virtual machine snapshot') and even names the underlying endpoint (vm/create_snapshot). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling snapshot tools like get_snapshots, remove_snapshot, and restore_snapshot.

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?

Tells the agent the operation is async and explicitly routes follow-up polling to check_task, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, state any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. snapshot limits, VM state requirements).

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