snipe_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates mutation ('Change', 'add') but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, partial-update semantics, whether note appends or replaces, or what happens when optional fields are omitted.

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. It efficiently lists the mutable fields and embeds the state enum, so every part 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves critical gaps: the required id, the agent parameter, and mutation behavior. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing input semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names state, priority, suspect, kind, and note, and usefully enumerates the allowed state values, but it omits the required id parameter and the agent parameter entirely and gives no formats for priority or note.

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 has a clear verb, 'Change', and lists multiple mutable fields, so the basic action is understandable. However, it never names the resource ('snipe') and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like claim_snipe, verify_snipe, or snipe_add, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use snipe_update versus alternatives such as claim_snipe, verify_snipe, or snipe_abort. The description implies editing an existing record but gives no prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions.

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