update_sc_repo

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. The word 'Update' implies mutation, but no further detail is given.

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 one short sentence (4 words) and is efficient. It is not wasteful, but it may be too terse to fully inform usage. Still, it earns a high score for lack of fluff.

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 simple update tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral and usage context that would help an agent decide when to invoke it, especially given the many sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (repo_name, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 'a repository's description'. It is specific among sibling tools (e.g., update_sc_repo_user) as it focuses on the description field. However, it could be more precise by naming the repository type (source control).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_sc_repo, delete_sc_repo). No prerequisites or context for usage. The description lacks any conditional or exclusionary information.

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