Graph Correlate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation's safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds modest context beyond annotations — 'one... snapshot' signals a single point-in-time artifact and 'bounded' signals constrained scope — but it does not disclose audit expectations, stale-evidence handling, or how the resulting snapshot is later retrieved.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely efficient. 'Create' is front-loaded, and every modifier — 'one,' 'bounded,' 'provenance-rich' — earns its place given that the schema and annotations carry the detailed documentation burden.

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 schema fully documents all 9 parameters, annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and an output schema exists, so an agent can technically invoke the tool correctly. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and 80+ siblings, the absence of any guidance on when to use this snapshot tool versus runtime_correlate, or how results are later consumed via graph_correlation_status, is a real gap.

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, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'bounded' and 'provenance-rich' add interpretive color about the overall operation but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'correlation snapshot,' with 'bounded' and 'provenance-rich' conveying scope and data focus. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as runtime_correlate or graph_correlation_status, so the agent must inspect the schema to understand the 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 one-line description provides no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Given the sibling list contains runtime_correlate and graph_correlation_status, an agent receives no guidance on when a bounded snapshot correlation is the right choice versus runtime or status-checking operations.

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