hacs_update_hacs_repository

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

The description discloses the update operation but lacks details about behavioral implications. It does not mention needed permissions, potential side effects, reversibility, or whether it triggers a restart. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but does not earn its place. It is too terse and fails to add value beyond the tool name. Better structure would include parameter details or usage hints.

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 that the tool performs a mutation and has an output schema (undefined in description), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error states, and operational context, making it insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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 only parameter, repo_id, is not explained in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what repo_id represents or how to obtain it. The parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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 tool's action: updating a HACS repository to its latest version. The name and description together uniquely identify the operation, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like installation, uninstallation, or listing.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The description is purely functional without usage boundaries.

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