create_repository_snapshot

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it reads the repository, persists snapshot/symbol/dependency artifacts, never writes to the repository, is idempotent with a status='existing' result, and returns specific fields. This is rich, non-obvious context that an agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, idempotent behavior, downstream consumers, side effects, return contents, and the alternative tool. The key scoping statement is front-loaded, and no filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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?

With no output schema present, the description appropriately explains return values (snapshot_id, resolved_revision, content_hash, file_count, language_counts, and artifact refs), mentions the snapshot status behavior, names downstream consumers, and identifies prerequisite connector lookup. There are no significant gaps affecting correct selection or invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description mostly restates the repository_id source ('find its id with list_connectors') but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('create or reuse') and resource ('immutable, content-hashed snapshot of a saved repository connector'), and distinguishes the tool from its sibling get_repository_snapshot by explicitly noting that one fetches an existing snapshot by id. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from nearby alternatives.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it is the input to triage_repository and query_repository_graph, re-running with identical inputs reuses the existing snapshot, and the alternative get_repository_snapshot is identified for fetching by id. It also names a prerequisite step, finding the connector id with list_connectors.

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