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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: it flips the process status to `generating`, returns 202 immediately, and runs agents asynchronously before flipping the status back to `review`. This gives an agent a clear model of the side effects and async behavior without contradicting the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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?

Three focused sentences: the action is front-loaded, followed by the target scope, then the async behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action, target selection, immediate 202 response, and asynchronous completion behavior. With no output schema, it omits return-value specifics but provides enough for an agent to understand the operation's flow. The exact conditional id mapping is left to the schema, which fully documents it, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic grouping by naming the snapshot kinds, but it uses 'automation proposal' where the schema enum says 'transformation_proposal,' and it vaguely refers to 'identified by id in the body' without mapping ids to types. The parameter details are essentially carried by the schema, not the description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Re-run postprocessing agents on an existing v2 clarity snapshot.' It further narrows the target to either the current-process snapshot or the automation proposal snapshot. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling snapshot operations like generateClarityProcessSnapshot, promoteClarityProcessSnapshot, saveClarityProcessSnapshot, revertClarityProcessSnapshot, and stopClarityProcessSnapshot.

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 clearly states the use case: when you need to re-run postprocessing agents on an existing snapshot, and it identifies the two snapshot types it can target. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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