save_snapshot

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Runs claim verification on your content' and 'Backend derives evidence_tier from cited_ids — not caller-controlled.' This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention side effects or error conditions.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the primary action, second provides usage context and step number, third adds behavioral notes. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 multi-step snapshot process and 4 parameters, the description effectively sets context (step 3, post-snapshot_sources). It mentions claim verification and evidence_tier derivation but does not specify return values or next steps (e.g., accept_snapshot). With no output schema, a brief note on output would improve completeness.

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 marginal value by explaining that evidence_tier is derived from cited_ids, adding meaning to that parameter. The force parameter's effect is implied but not elaborated. Overall, the description complements the schema without fully compensating for its own lack of detail.

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 persists a synthesized snapshot draft and identifies it as step 3 of the MCP snapshot path. It distinguishes from siblings like snapshot_sources (which produces sources) and accept_snapshot (which finalizes), making the purpose 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 explicitly says 'Call this after synthesizing from snapshot_sources()', providing clear usage context. It also notes that evidence_tier is backend-derived and claim verification runs. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for non-draft saves, slightly limiting guidance.

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