Create snapshot

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by warning: 'Creating new snapshot will overwrite the existing snapshot!' This is a critical behavioral side effect that an agent must know before calling the tool. The annotations do not contradict this: readOnlyHint=false correctly signals a mutating operation, and the overwrite warning is additional transparency rather than a denial of destructive behavior.

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 core action and the critical overwrite warning are front-loaded and easy to find. The explanatory sentence about snapshots adds useful context but is somewhat redundant. Overall, the description is well-structured and not excessively long.

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 single-parameter creation endpoint, the description covers the purpose, the main behavioral warning, and appropriate use cases. There is no output schema, so a note about the response format or polling would have been helpful, but it is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the annotations provided.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, including a description for virtualMachineId: 'Virtual Machine ID.' The description only repeats this by referring to 'a specified virtual machine,' adding no type, format, or lookup guidance. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Create a snapshot of a specified virtual machine.' It identifies the resource and the core behavior, and it even highlights that creating a new snapshot overwrites the existing one. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling snapshot tools like VPS_restoreSnapshotV1 or VPS_deleteSnapshotV1, so it misses the highest mark for sibling distinction.

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 intended use: 'Use this endpoint to capture VPS state for backup and recovery purposes.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when to use VPS_restoreBackupV1 instead, 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.