ecosystem_repo_manual_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses downstream effects on removed_from_query counts, last_active_status transitions (active vs manual_archived), and what clearing does. It omits permission/auth requirements and any concurrency or audit-side-effect caveats beyond the reason field.

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 core action is front-loaded, then each status value is explained in its own clause. It is somewhat verbose with backticked identifiers, but every sentence conveys a real behavioral consequence and nothing is redundant.

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 state-mutating tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the semantic consequences of each mode are covered thoroughly. The remaining gap is operational context — auth requirements and whether the override is reversible across modes.

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 already 100%, but the description genuinely adds meaning by explaining what each status value does to system state rather than just restating the enum-like options. The reason and project_id parameters are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb (Set/clear) applied to a specific resource (the human override on a repo's active status). It clearly distinguishes itself from scan/query siblings such as ecosystem_repo_get and ecosystem_scan, which only read state.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance for the two override modes — 'Use it for high-value repos you always track' for pinned, and reviewed-and-rejected for no_value — plus the clearing case. No explicit alternatives are named, but the context for each mode is well defined.

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