ise_openapi_repo_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals it's a PUT update (implying mutation/overwrite), but doesn't state whether it fully replaces the existing definition, what partial vs full updates mean for omitted fields, whether permissions are required, or what happens on nonexistent names.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, no wasted words. The [Repository] prefix categories the tool type. Could perhaps include more behavioral detail but is appropriately concise for what it conveys.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'data' object whose structure is undocumented. The description doesn't explain return behavior, error conditions, or whether update is full-replace vs merge. Sibling tools (create/delete/get) exist, making update semantics especially important to clarify.

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 schema documents name, data, and deployment params. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path for context. However, the critical 'data' parameter is only described as 'JSON request body' with no explanation of its expected structure or fields, which is a gap given this tool updates a repo definition.

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?

Description clearly states it updates a specific repository via PUT /api/v1/repository/{name}. The verb 'update' plus 'definition of a specific repository' is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from ise_openapi_repo_get or ise_openapi_repo_create beyond the verb, though the update intent is clear.

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 this is for updating an existing repository definition but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (create/delete/get), no prerequisites (e.g., repo must exist), and no guidance on when to use this over other openapi repo tools.

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