Create Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the operation is asynchronous and the snapshot is enqueued, so the agent knows the call returns before the snapshot exists. It stops short of saying how to observe completion or whether duplicate calls enqueue multiple 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The async clause is slightly redundant in phrasing ('Asynchronous — the snapshot is enqueued') but the emphasis is useful rather than wasteful.

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 three-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete. The main gap is what the caller should do after enqueueing, such as polling list_snapshots, which would help an agent complete the workflow.

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 cubeId, name, and spaceId are already documented, including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the snapshot targets the cube's disk; 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 snapshot of a Cube's disk'), which separates it cleanly from list_snapshots, delete_snapshot, and restore_cube. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the create semantics, and the async note hints that the caller must not expect an immediate snapshot. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., before restore_cube, or in place of a backup) and no pointer to list_snapshots for tracking progress.

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