gitlab_update_snippetUpdate a GitLab snippet's title, content, filename, or visibility by snippet ID, optionally within a project, to keep shared code and notes current.
Update a snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| file_name | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| snippet_id | No | ||
| visibility | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it doesn't say that all parameters are optional (partial updates), what happens to unspecified fields, or what permissions the caller needs for a project-scoped snippet.
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?
The sentence is short but that is under-specification, not conciseness; there is nothing front-loaded or prioritized because there is effectively no content beyond the title.
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 7 undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and a free-form nested `data` object, the description is nowhere near complete enough to call it correctly. Critical facts such as partial-update semantics and identifier requirements are absent.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails. It never explains the opaque `data` object, the difference between `project_id` and `snippet_id`, or valid values for `visibility`, leaving the agent to guess from bare property names.
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?
"Update a snippet" restates the tool name and title with no additional specificity. It names no updatable fields and gives no way to distinguish it from gitlab_create_snippet, gitlab_delete_snippet, or gitlab_get_snippet beyond the bare verb.
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 this versus gitlab_create_snippet (create) or the get/delete snippet siblings, and no prerequisites stated. The only cue is the word "Update", which the agent could infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.