Create Snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral constraint — the Builder tier or higher requirement — which is exactly the kind of permission context the rubric credits. However, it says nothing about whether snapshot creation is synchronous or async, how long it takes, or any cost/retention implications of a mutating operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the access prerequisite; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves behavioral gaps rather than padding them.

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?

With one well-documented required parameter and no output schema, the description need not explain return values. But for a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, the agent still lacks information about the operation's behavior (async? blocking? retention?), so the definition is only minimally complete.

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% for the single parameter (databaseId), so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 point-in-time snapshot of a database.' The scope is unambiguous and no sibling tool (create_database, migrate) overlaps with snapshotting. It stops short of any sibling differentiation, but none is genuinely needed here.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The only qualifier is a plan-tier prerequisite ('Builder tier or higher'), which gates access but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over e.g. migrate or create_database.

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