stellar_snapshot_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does little beyond stating the operation. It doesn't say whether it writes/overwrites a local file, whether it requires a reachable history archive or network config, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur — all critical for a tool that creates an output artifact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it earns good marks for structure while leaving the completeness gap to other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, a nested object, one required field, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is inadequate. The description omits default behavior, where the snapshot is written, and how network/archive selection interacts with the other parameters.

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 all 11 parameters including ledger, archiveUrl, out, and the required output enum are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'history archive' loosely maps to archiveUrl but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create), resource (ledger snapshot), and method (using a history archive), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces and where it sources data. It does not name or differentiate against any alternative, but no sibling snapshot tool exists in the list, so differentiation is largely moot.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus other ledger/snapshot-related operations, no prerequisites, and no conditions. An agent must infer everything about fit from the one-line purpose statement.

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