create_snippet_tool

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

Since annotations are entirely absent, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It truthfully states the core side effect (creating a snippet) and adds the 'in a GitLab project' scope, but it doesn't mention permissions required, idempotency, or implications (e.g., snippet becomes visible to project members). The behavior is disclosed correctly but not deeply.

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?

A single efficient, front-loaded sentence that communicates action, resource, and scope without waste. It could earn a 5 only by adding a bit more useful info, but for the claimed purpose it's well-proportioned.

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?

The tool is a simple create operation with 4 required params and an output schema present, so the description gets partial credit for not needing to explain returns. However, there's no note about error behavior (e.g., duplicate titles, non-existent projects) or how visibility interacts with project visibility, making the context adequate but not thorough.

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% — all six parameters have clear descriptions including an example file name and a default visibility value. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

'Create a new snippet in a GitLab project' uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (snippet) and is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_snippets_tool. The description clearly scopes the operation to GitLab projects but doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it just misses a 5.

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 prerequisites, when to choose this over similar create_* tools, or under what project conditions a snippet can be created. With 14 sibling create_* tools and no alternatives mentioned, the agent gets no explicit direction beyond what the tool name alone conveys.

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