Update an existing snippet in Remnawave by specifying its current name. Provide a new name to rename it or a new array of Outbound or Rule objects to replace its content.
Update an existing snippet (identified by name)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Current snippet name (used to identify the snippet) | |
| newName | No | New name to rename the snippet to | |
| snippet | No | New content — array of Outbound or Rule objects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is an update, which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether it is idempotent, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, or if there are any side effects. The absence of such details is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. No redundant words or filler. It front-loads the action and resource.
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 and no output schema, the description lacks critical context: it doesn't mention return value, error conditions, whether rename and content update can be combined, or constraints on snippet content. Given the complexity of the snippet parameter (array of objects) and the presence of sibling tools like snippets_sync, more guidance is needed.
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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'name' is used to identify the snippet, but does not explain the relationship between newName and snippet (e.g., can you rename and update content in one call?). For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Update an existing snippet (identified by name)' which clearly indicates the verb (update), resource (snippet), and identification method (by name). It distinguishes from create/delete/list snippets, but does not explicitly differentiate from snippets_sync which might also modify snippets.
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 updating an existing snippet but does not state when to use this versus snippets_create or snippets_sync. It mentions identification by name but no prerequisites (e.g., snippet must exist) or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.