snippets_update_snippet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals nothing beyond the mutation implied by 'Update'/'PATCH'. However, the 'confirm' boolean parameter's own schema description conveys the critical behavioral trait that non-GET operations require confirm:true or a preview is returned, which partially compensates. Still, the description itself adds no safety, reversibility, or scoping context.

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 fragments: an HTTP route, a tautological 'Update snippet', and a tag line. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the trivially derived verb. It is short but under-specified rather than concise – the brevity reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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 tool with no annotations, a nested body object, undocumented nested items, no output schema, and dozens of near-identically named snippet siblings, the description is inadequate. The agent must fall back entirely on schema and the confirm parameter's description to invoke it safely.

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 50%. The 'confirm' parameter carries its own rich description explaining the preview behavior (MCP_CONFIRM), while 'body' is a nested object with no description and inner nested items with empty properties. The description text supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it neither adds nor compensates for the gap in the nested schema.

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 is a raw HTTP method + path ('PATCH /api/snippets') plus a tautological restatement ('Update snippet'). The tool name already says update_snippet, so 'Update snippet' adds nothing. It does not identify which snippet is targeted or how it differs from siblings like snippets_sync_snippet, snippets_create_snippet, or snippets_delete_snippet_by_name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no distinction from sibling snippet tools (create, delete, sync, get_snippets). The 'Update snippet' phrase implies a mutation but the agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool over the sync variant.

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