panelica_git_put_v1_git_repositories_id

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

The description adds 'Required scopes: git:write' and 'Mutating: changes server state,' which are useful beyond annotations. However, annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destrutiveHint=false, and the description does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or body consequences. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact and well-structured, with key metadata (HTTP method, scopes, mutability) in separate bullet lines. It earns most lines, though 'Category: Git' is redundant given the tool name and sibling context.

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?

Although the update action and scopes are clear, the tool has no output schema and an open-ended request body with no field guidance in description or schema. An agent would not konw what to include in the body or what result to expect, which is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description does not explain parameters. The body parameter is declared as an open schema ('Schema not statically declared — see API docs'), and the description does not compensate by describing likely body fields or structure, leaving meaningful ambiguity for the open-world body.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update repository') and includes the HTTP method (PUT /v1/git/repositories/:id), which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from read/create/delete git operations, though it does not enumerate which repository fields can be updated.

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 choose this tool over sibling git operations (e.g., post/delete/get repository, branch operations, deployments). It identifies required scopes and mutating behavior, but not the decision context that would help an agent route to this tool vs alternatives.

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