github_secret_scanning_update_org_pattern_configs

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

The description only states 'Update', implying a mutation operation, but no additional behavioral insights are given. Since no annotations are present, the description should disclose side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's impact.

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 extremely short (one sentence, 31 characters), which is concise but borderline too terse. It front-loads the core purpose, but given the complexity of the tool, some additional context would be warranted. It earns a 4 for being efficient, but loses a point for being overly minimal.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain what pattern configurations are, how the body should be structured, or what happens upon update. The tool appears moderately complex (object parameter with flexible schema), yet the description provides no meaningful context.

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 description does not explain the parameters (org and body) beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's parameter descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no clarity on the body's expected structure or the role of the org parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('organization pattern configurations'), which matches the tool name. It distinguishes this tool from sibling secret scanning tools that focus on alerts rather than pattern configs. However, it does not elaborate on what pattern configurations are, which might be unfamiliar to some agents.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., creating or deleting pattern configs, or updating alerts). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or related tools.

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