company_artifact_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'immutable' and 'authorized', but doesn't explain side effects: does it create a snapshot record? Is it a write operation that changes system state? Does it require specific permissions? Does it fail if artifact not found? No mention of idempotency, reversibility, or what happens to existing snapshots.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, but it's under-specified. It is one sentence with no fluff, but it doesn't earn its place because it lacks critical details. Conciseness without substance is not valuable.

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 6 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. The agent doesn't know what the evidence_id refers to, what the clearance levels are, how to format groups_json/projects_json, or what the tool returns. Even though siblings provide context, the description alone is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter semantics flexibly. However, the description provides no information about any parameter except the concept of 'artifact' (which maps vaguely to evidence_id?). It doesn't explain evidence_id, clearance, tenant_id, groups_json, projects_json, principal_id, or their roles, especially the JSON string parameters.

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 'Explicitly materialize an authorized artifact into immutable snapshot storage.' mentions verb 'materialize' and resource 'artifact' and destination 'snapshot storage', but it doesn't specify what 'materialize' means in operational terms (e.g., create a copy, freeze version). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like company_artifact_register or company_artifact_inspect; an agent wouldn't know when to use this vs. those without more context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool list includes many memory-related tools, but the description gives no conditions for use or exclusions. The phrase 'authorized artifact' implies some authorization context but doesn't explain how to ensure authorization or what steps precede.

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