github_security_advisories_update_repository_advisory

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, whether the update is destructive, or what side effects occur. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond stating the action.

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 a single, clear sentence that is appropriately concise for a simple update operation. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail.

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 low complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the response or any special behaviors.

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 has 100% coverage with basic descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'ghsa_id', and 'Request body (JSON object)'), but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description adds no further value.

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 'Update a repository security advisory' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (repository security advisory), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus creating or listing advisories. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to use this tool.

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