snapshot_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: snapshots are stored separately and include metadata tracking stats and changes. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether an existing tag is overwritten), permission requirements, or what the response contains, limiting transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries meaning. It is efficiently written without fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 fully documented parameters, the description is minimally complete. It explains the tool's purpose and storage behavior but does not mention what happens on success (e.g., returns a snapshot ID) or how it relates to restore_snapshot, which could round out the context.

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 fully documents all parameters (build_name, tag, description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('versioned snapshot of a build'), clearly stating the tool's primary function. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_snapshots and restore_snapshot, which manage snapshots rather than create them.

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 phrase 'for easy rollback' implies the intended usage context (before making risky changes), and 'versioned' suggests creating a stable restore point. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like export_build for sharing, so it stops short of full guidance.

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