manage_snapshot

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

Annotations are all set to false and provide no safety profile, so the description carries full weight. It says 'restore' and 'undo mutations' without disclosing whether these actions destructively modify world state, whether they are reversible, or what permissions are needed. The read-only operations (list, diff, history, time travel) are not separated from mutating ones.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the tool's role and enumerates actions. There is no repeated info and the structure clearly organizes the core capabilities, though the sausage is a bit sprawling.

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 has 9 parameters, 7 actions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully map actions to required parameters or to explain return types. Each property in the schema is described, but the constellation of combinations and the tool's output shape are left to inference, so it is just adequate.

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% and each parameter has its own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the list of actions but not the mapping of them to parameters; it establishes baseline about semantics without violating or contradicting the 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 precisely identifies the resource (spatial snapshots/time-travel) and lists concrete verbs: save, restore, diff, list, undo, inspect. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on snapshot management rather than entity updates, relations, or simulation.

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 frames the tool as the unified destination for snapshot operations but never states when to prefer it over a sibling or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer scope from the action enum alone.

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