update_snippet_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the destructive nature via 'Overwrites the current draft code,' but it does not clarify whether the published snippet is affected, require permissions, or mention reversibility. Some critical behavior is disclosed, but not enough 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 two sentences long and immediately states the action and effect. Every word earns its place, and the overwrite warning is concise. 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?

Given the simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states what is saved (source code), where (to a draft), and the effect (overwrites current draft). It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. It lacks deeper context about interactions with other snippet states, but the description is effectively complete for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Full source code to save to the draft' and 'The snippet slug'), so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It reaffirms that the code is source code but does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('source code to a snippet's draft'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_snippet, which likely handles metadata. It also adds the key behavioral detail that it 'Overwrites the current draft code,' making the tool's scope explicit.

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 the tool is for saving code to a snippet's draft, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_snippet. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit rather than overt.

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