Update a snippet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by spelling out the blast radius: delivery, audience membership, published data, or irreversible state, plus the confirm gate. It stops short of saying what specifically gets altered or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the action, then risk, then the gating requirement. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information and there is no 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema or body-field parameters, the description covers risk and the confirm requirement, which is the essential part. It leaves a real gap, though: with only snippet_id/account/confirm in the schema, it is never explained what state change is actually applied to the snippet.

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 already documents account, confirm, and snippet_id, and the description's mention of confirm=true merely repeats the schema. It adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the structured fields provide, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ("Update a snippet") that any agent can map to a concrete operation, and the sibling set contains obvious counterparts (get_snippet, create_snippet, list_snippets). However, it does not differentiate itself from those siblings or say what aspect of a snippet is being updated, so the agent must infer this is the mutation counterpart of get_snippet.

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?

It gives a conditional requirement ("Requires confirm=true") tied to risky effects, which is useful usage information. But it offers no when-to-use framing versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of which changes are safe versus which need confirmation beyond a general warning.

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