Reorder snippets

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

Annotations already cover mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds that this is a bulk operation affecting both order and folder, and mentions acceptance of a legacy `updates` key, which is useful but does not explain deeper behavior like whether unlisted snippets are preserved or how ordering is applied.

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 description is brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place, though the legacy key mention could be integrated more smoothly. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema and a schema with zero descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not specify required fields, the full payload structure, how to order snippets, or the behavior of the legacy `updates` payload, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without additional inference.

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 explain parameter meanings, but it only names the `snippets` key and mentions a legacy `updates` key. It does not explain that each item requires an `id`, what `order` signifies (absolute vs relative), or how `folder` is applied, leaving the agent to guess from 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder snippets' and 'Bulk updates the order and folder of snippets.' It distinguishes this bulk operation from single-snippet tools like update_snippet and other reorder tools (hosts, credentials) by explicitly naming the resource and scope.

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 usage for bulk reordering and folder assignment via 'Bulk updates the order and folder of snippets.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like termix_snippets_update_snippet or state when not to use this tool (e.g., single-snippet edits), leaving the selection decision partially to inference.

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