site_snapshot

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

The description claims a read-only backup, but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, creating a direct contradiction. While the description adds many behavioral details (overwrite behavior, partial snapshot handling, _meta.json), the contradiction undermines trust. The description does not clarify why readOnlyHint is false.

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 comprehensive yet concise, with a logical structure: it opens with the tool's scope, then covers default behavior, overwrite flag, required pre-flight contexts, and the manifest output. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (many resources, overwrite behavior, error handling, manifest), the description covers most aspects. However, it does not explicitly describe the tool's return value (though it implies success through file writing). The lack of output schema is not critical, but an agent might want to know what the tool returns besides writing files.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context: it explains the default behavior of output_dir (fresh vs existing), the semantic of overwrite (authorizing writing into existing dir, distinct from force), and the relationship to automation/cron. This goes beyond 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 clearly states it is a comprehensive read-only backup of all mutable Voog resources, listing many specific resource types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like layouts_pull or pages_snapshot by being a full site backup, and it identifies when to use it (pre-flight for risky operations).

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 provides explicit guidance: it is required pre-flight before risky operations like layout rename, mass push, or page_delete. It also explains the default refusal to overwrite and the overwrite flag for automation. This clearly establishes when and how to use the tool.

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