Protect/Unprotect Snapshot

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the consequence of protection (cannot be pruned or deleted) and notes the return value. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description's additional semantic context is valuable and does not contradict the annotations.

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 and front-loaded: a concise summary sentence, then a clear Args list, then Returns. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. The only slight redundancy is repeating schema descriptions, but the organization is effective.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params, 5 required) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adequately covers the main behavior, the effect of protection, and the return value. It is not overly verbose but provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter information from the schema and adds only a minor extension: an example format for backup_time ('2025-03-22T04:00:00Z'). The description does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's function: 'Set or remove protection on a backup snapshot.' This uses a specific verb ('set/remove') and resource ('protection on a backup snapshot'), and it is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like pbs_list_snapshots or pbs_prune_datastore by the unique protection action.

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 context on when to use this tool by explaining the effect: 'Protected snapshots cannot be pruned or deleted.' This implies use cases (e.g., preventing accidental deletion) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is clear but not as explicit as naming sibling tools for contrast.

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