snapshot_update

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('Status message confirming update') and the quirky identifier resolution ('snapshot ID or description, e.g. backup-2024-01 or UUID'). But it does not say whether the previous description is fully overwritten, whether the change is irreversible, or whether any permissions are required.

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 compact and front-loaded, organized as Purpose / Args / Returns with no filler. Each line earns its place, including the useful example for snapshot_id and the return-format note.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, both parameter semantics, and the return shape, which an output schema would also cover. Minor omissions such as overwrite/reversibility caveats keep it from a 5.

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 must compensate fully — and it does for both parameters: snapshot_id clarifies it accepts either a human-friendly name or a UUID with an example, and description explains what the new value means. The only gap is lack of constraints such as maximum description length.

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 opening line 'Update a snapshot description' states a specific verb and resource, and the scope is narrower than the sibling tools (snapshot_create, snapshot_delete, snapshot_create_from_url). An agent can immediately distinguish which snapshot operation this is without inspecting the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'Update a snapshot description' strongly suggests this is for changing the description field, and no other snapshot-update sibling exists. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over create/delete, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions.

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