snippets_sync_snippet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical side effect: 'Nodes which use affected config profiles will be restarted.' That is genuinely valuable behavioral context for a mutation. It still omits auth requirements, reversibility, and whether the sync is atomic, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the key effect, but the first two lines are redundant ('Sync snippet to affected config profiles' vs 'Trigger the sync of a snippet to all config profiles that reference it'), and the trailing 'Tags: Snippets Controller' line is noise. The restart warning is the only sentence that 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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect (sync plus node restarts). It could note the confirm/preview gate that governs execution, but the core decision information an agent needs is present.

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 50%: the 'confirm' param is fully documented in the schema, but the required 'name' param has only a pattern and length, no description. The description implies the snippet is identified by name ('Sync snippet...') but adds no format or selection detail, so it neither compensates fully nor is entirely empty.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sync snippet to affected config profiles') and the scope of effect ('all config profiles that reference it'). This distinguishes it from siblings like snippets_update_snippet and snippets_create_snippet without needing schema inspection.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate (when a snippet should be propagated to referencing profiles), but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like snippets_update_snippet. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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