hacs_update_hacs_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (update) without detailing side effects (e.g., if already latest, if restart is needed, permission requirements, or potential conflicts). The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add valuable context without becoming verbose. A score of 4 acknowledges conciseness but notes underutilization.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool operates in the context of HACS (Home Assistant Community Store) and has several sibling tools; the description does not clarify what 'repository' refers to (e.g., a custom integration or component) or how this update affects the system. It is minimally complete.

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 one parameter 'repo_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's format, source, or purpose beyond what is obvious from the tool name. For a tool with a single, undefined parameter, the description should provide at least basic guidance on how to obtain or specify the repo_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource 'a HACS repository' with a clear outcome 'to its latest available version'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hacs_install_hacs_repository' (install vs update) and 'hacs_list_hacs_repositories' (list vs update).

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?

The description implies usage when a HACS repository update is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'hacs_install_hacs_repository' for initial installation or 'hacs_uninstall_hacs_repository' for removal. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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