Create snapshot

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states it copies a file/dir into a timestamped slot, which creates new persistent data. This directly contradicts the read-only hint and could mislead an agent into thinking the operation has no side effects. Per the rules, a contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the action, and gives a terse usage cue. Every word earns its place with no bloat or repetition. It is appropriately concise, aside from a minor typo in 'file/dir'.

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?

Even though the tool is simple (two params, one required) and an output schema exists, the description leaves the label parameter undefined and contradicts the annotations on side effects. This creates a meaningful gap: an agent lacks both parameter semantics and an accurate safety model, so it cannot reliably invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'path' or 'label' at all. The 'label' parameter's purpose is completely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail. With two parameters and zero parameter-level explanation, the agent cannot correctly determine what label controls.

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 uses a specific verb (Copy) and resource (file/dir) and adds a clear usage context ('before risky ops'), which distinguishes it from siblings like snapshot_list and snapshot_restore. The tool's intent is unmistakable despite its brevity.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool: before risky operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before risky ops' phrase implies the timing and separates this from snapshot listing/restoring tools. Clear context without exclusions merits a 4.

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