create_snapshot

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context: snapname format constraints, description semantics, and the include_ram effect ('save RAM so the guest resumes mid-run'). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss side effects like guest suspension.

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 a compact docstring with a clear Args section. Each line contributes necessary information; there is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail. It is well-structured and easily skimmable.

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 4-parameter mutation tool, the description covers all parameters, includes format constraints, and explains optional behavior. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not necessary. Minor missing context: prerequisites or failure modes are not mentioned, but this is acceptable given annotations and schema.

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 responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains every parameter in plain language: vmid ('Guest to snapshot'), snapname (with format rules), description ('Optional note stored with the snapshot'), and include_ram (VM-specific RAM saving). This far exceeds the bare type information in 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 opens with 'Take a snapshot of a VM or container', which is a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_backup and list_snapshots.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose and parameter documentation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_backup. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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