Create snippet

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

Beyond the annotations it adds concrete behavior: default visibility is private, a maximum of 10 files, instance/storage limits, files are stored as data only (not executed), and retries can create duplicates. That last point turns the idempotentHint=false annotation into actionable guidance, which is exactly the value the description should add on top of structured fields.

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?

Six short sentences, no filler, with the write-scope precondition and the default visibility front-loaded before limits and the retry warning. Each sentence contributes a distinct operational fact.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description never says what comes back — no mention of a new snippet ID or URL, which an agent needs to chain into read_snippet or update_snippet. It also omits the source and tags parameters entirely, though it does cover the main failure modes well.

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 carries the full burden, and it only explains three of seven parameters: files (max 10, data only), collection (must pre-exist), and visibility (defaults to private). It says nothing about title, tags, description, or the nested source object (repository/commit/dirty), leaving meaningful gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Save code as a new snippet'), and the word 'new' implicitly separates it from update_snippet. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary with update_snippet rather than being told.

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?

It states a real precondition ('write scope required', 'A collection must already exist') that tells the agent when the call will fail, and 'Do not retry automatically' is an explicit usage instruction. It stops short of naming update_snippet or create_collection as the alternative path, so the routing is only partially handled.

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