set_org_selected_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT), required scope, and condition. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., replacing the entire list), reversibility, or error cases. For a mutation tool, more behavioral detail is needed.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences and front-loaded purpose. Including the full URL may be slightly excessive but not detrimental. No filler.

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 no output schema, mutation nature, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what happens to existing settings. An AI agent would lack sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 description must compensate. It does not describe either parameter (org, selected_repository_ids). The description only mentions them implicitly in the URL path, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's basic types.

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 replaces the org's selected-repos list for cloud-agent access, using the verb 'Replace' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_repo_for_org (adds one repo) and disable_repo_for_org (removes one repo), as well as set_org_permissions (broader scope).

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?

Description explicitly notes when the tool is meaningful ('Only meaningful when enabled_repositories=selected') and requires 'admin:org' scope. However, it does not compare to alternatives (e.g., using enable/disable for individual repos) or state when not to use it.

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