contabo_snapshots

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds materially more, disclosing that the server is READ-ONLY by default and that write operations are rejected unless started with CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1, plus tagging delete and rollback as [DESTRUCTIVE]. It does not explain the effect of a rollback on current instance state, which is the one behavioral trait an agent would most want spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the read-only constraint, then a scannable per-operation list where destructive entries are tagged inline. It is well organized with no filler, though the trailing pointer to contabo_reference is the only place parameter expectations are set and could be folded closer to the list.

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 six-operation dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent needs: the operation catalog, the exactly-one-operation contract, per-operation parameter sets, the write gating, and a pointer for deeper parameter docs. Nothing required to select and invoke a valid operation is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents instanceId, snapshotId, name, description, pagination and ordering with length limits. The description only asserts that parameter sets are validated per operation and delegates detail to contabo_reference, adding routing value but no semantic detail beyond the schema; the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (Contabo instance snapshots) and the operation list supplies a concrete verb for each mode (list/create/get/update/delete/rollback), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, contabo_images, which also manages instance artifacts, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states the dispatch contract ('Choose exactly one operation; every operation has its own parameter set') and routes the agent to contabo_reference for full parameter documentation, which is clear usage context. What is missing is when-not-to-use guidance, i.e. why an agent would pick a snapshot operation over related tools like contabo_images or contabo_instances backup flows.

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