disable_repo_for_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the HTTP method (DELETE) and required scope, which are helpful. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., if repo not in list), or whether the action is reversible. These gaps leave some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a URL and scope requirement. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (removing a repo from a list) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core purpose, auth, and HTTP method. It could be improved by mentioning the expected response (e.g., status 204 No Content) and whether it is idempotent, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward DELETE 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by showing the URL path with placeholders for 'org' and 'repository_id', indicating they are path parameters. However, it does not explain what 'repository_id' represents (e.g., GitHub repository ID), leaving some meaning to be inferred.

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 action: 'Remove one repo from the org's selected cloud-agent list.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like enable_repo_for_org, which does the opposite.

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 specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires `admin:org` scope.' This guides usage by indicating required permissions. It implies when to use (to disable a repo) vs. enable_repo_for_org, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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