Manage local index snapshots

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: snapshots never leave the project, restore uses verified files and a recovery snapshot by default, and no project code is executed. These safety and operational details are not captured in the annotations (which only indicate destructive intent). However, it doesn't fully disclose all mutation behaviors like what cleanup does or whether restore overwrites the current index, so it's good but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes key behavioral notes without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutating, destructive) and the absence of parameter descriptions, the description is notably incomplete. It lacks guidance on how to choose operations, what each parameter does, and what happens during restore or cleanup. While an output schema exists (which may cover return values), the description fails to provide enough operational context for safe and correct invocation, especially for a destructive operation.

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 for parameters, and the tool description provides no information about any of the eight parameters (directory, operation, list_limit, snapshot_id, max_snapshots, backup_current, max_total_bytes, max_snapshot_bytes). An agent would have to rely on parameter names and schema constraints alone, which is insufficient for a tool with this many options and defaults. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 tool creates, verifies, restores, lists, and cleans bounded local snapshots of the semantic index. It specifies the exact resource (snapshots of the index) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like index_codebase or search_code by focusing on snapshot lifecycle management. The verb+resource is specific and 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (for snapshot management tasks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. It mentions default restore behavior but doesn't say 'use this when you need to backup or restore the index' or contrast with other index-related tools. This leaves usage context implicit.

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