update_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies this is a mutation tool (updating settings), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. The description adds basic context about what can be updated but lacks richer behavioral context needed for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and organized parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be more integrated with the natural language description rather than appearing as separate documentation blocks.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and what parameters mean. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects, error conditions) and doesn't describe the return value beyond 'Updated repository info' - a significant gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter does with concrete examples (e.g., 'Repository slug (e.g., "anzsic_classifier")', 'Move to different project (optional, e.g., "DS")'), clarifies which parameters are optional, and maps them to specific update operations. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'repository settings', specifying the exact fields that can be modified (project, visibility, description, name). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_repository' and 'delete_repository' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to move a repository to a different project, change visibility, update description, or rename the repository'), which covers the main use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'update_repository' vs 'update_group_permission').

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