update_repository

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, safety). It merely states 'Update' without indicating whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 12 parameters.

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 14-word sentence, which is concise but omits necessary details. There is no structure (e.g., bullet points or examples) to aid readability or quick comprehension.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites, or the effect of partial updates (e.g., whether unspecified fields are left unchanged).

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists only a subset of parameters ('such as') and adds no explanatory context beyond the schema's type definitions. Key parameters like owner, hasIssues, and private are omitted, leaving them semantically opaque.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Update') and resource ('repository details'), explicitly listing key fields (description, homepage, topics, visibility, default branch, archived state). This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_repository_labels or archive_repository.

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 alternatives (e.g., when to use add_repository_topics instead). The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.

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