termix_snippets_update_snippetUpdate an existing snippet by its ID with new content, name, folder, or order.
Update a snippet. Updates a specific snippet by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| isNote | No | When true, the snippet is a note (copy/paste only, not directly executable on a host). | |
| content | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds no detail about whether updates are partial or full, but the annotation profile carries most of the behavioral burden.
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 short and front-loads the core action, but the first sentence ('Update a snippet') redundantly repeats the title. The second sentence earns its place by adding the ID-scoping detail.
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 tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits which fields may be updated, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and what the response/effect looks like.
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?
With only 14% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify the optional fields, but it only clarifies that the target is identified by ID. The meanings of name, order, folder, content, and description are left to type names, and the update semantics (partial vs full replacement) are unspecified.
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 names the resource ('snippet') and the action ('update'), and narrows the target to 'a specific snippet by its ID,' which separates it from create/get/execute snippet tools. It is clear though terse; the first sentence mostly repeats the title.
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 about when to choose update_snippet over create_new_snippet, execute_snippet_host, or update_snippet_folder_metadata, and no 'when not to use' conditions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.