accept_snapshot

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains gate blockers (conflicts, downgrade, first canonical) and the effect of force=true. Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds context on validation and override behavior. No contradiction.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: purpose, gate behavior, force option. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main behavior (promotion, gate blockers, force override). While it doesn't explicitly state the success output format, the purpose is clear. Given no output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of force in overriding gate blockers, which goes beyond the schema description. It clarifies the decision pathway, but parameters are already well-described in schema.

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 action: 'Promote a draft snapshot to canonical.' It specifies the resource (draft snapshot) and outcome (supersedes prior canonical), distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_snapshot (draft creation) and get_snapshot (retrieval).

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 provides context for when to use the tool (to finalize a draft) and explains the gate blocker mechanism and force override. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to similar tools like commit, which could improve clarity.

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