create_cluster_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing that the output is an immutable snapshot, signalling persistence and irreversibility of the frozen result. It says nothing about cost or runtime of the clustering computation, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens if a snapshot with the same title exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two-phase nature (compute then freeze) is communicated economically. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool.

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 mutating, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description omits the return value entirely — an agent does not know whether it receives a snapshot identifier it needs for the subsequent get_cluster_snapshot call. It also omits failure modes and any indication of expense or duration for what is likely a heavy clustering job.

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%, with level, title, target_type and full_coverage each documented including an enum and a default, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact, such as how full_coverage (zero singletons) changes the resulting cluster count or how level interacts with target_type. 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?

The description names a specific compound action: compute connected-components clustering, then immediately persist it as an immutable snapshot. The verb+resource pairing is clear and the 'freeze into snapshot' framing implicitly separates it from a pure computation step. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g. compute_clusters or create_cluster_report) as an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that 'freeze it immediately' means the clustering result is persisted rather than just returned, and nothing tells it whether to prefer compute_clusters first or how this relates to create_cluster_report. 'Immediately' is the only contextual hint.

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