snapshot_create

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so by noting that creation 'may take several minutes' and that the snapshot initially appears with status 'pending.' This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the simple create action, though it stops short of explaining the full lifecycle or failure modes.

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 well-structured into Args, Returns, and Note sections, with every sentence adding useful information. The async timing warning and pending-state behavior earn their place without padding.

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?

For a two-parameter snapshot creation tool, the description covers the required identifier formats, the optional description field, the return type, and the key behavioral caveat (long-running operation with pending status). An output schema exists, so the description need not exhaustively document the return shape. It provides what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and set expectations.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: instance_id can be an ID, label, or hostname with examples, and description is explicitly marked optional with its purpose explained. This adds meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing, 'Create a snapshot from an instance,' which clearly states the operation and its source. This also differentiates it from sibling tool snapshot_create_from_url, which creates snapshots from a URL rather than an instance. The parameter examples reinforce that the input is an instance identifier.

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 conveys the intended use case through 'from an instance,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives like snapshot_create_from_url or state when not to use this tool. There is no direct when/when-not guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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