Update Project Snippet

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them by revealing that the files parameter can delete or move files, which an agent would not expect from a destructiveHint=false tool. It does not cover permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved, or the effect of full file replacement.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the writable fields are front-loaded before the file-action constraint. It is dense rather than padded, though the second sentence would read better as a distinct clause about the files parameter.

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 six parameters, the definition covers the non-obvious nested argument, which is the main failure mode. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, partial-update semantics for title/description/visibility, identifier parameters) are real but less likely to cause a mis-call.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains the complex nested 'files' structure (four allowed actions, previous_path needed for move), which is the highest-value clarification, but leaves project_id, snippet_id, and visibility semantics (especially the private/internal/public difference) undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('project snippet') plus the exact fields it touches (title, description, visibility, files), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/get snippet siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to prefer this over gitlab_create_or_update_file, whether the snippet must already exist, or what happens to fields omitted from the call. The reader must infer usage purely from the verb.

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