Update repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail by explaining that a new path is 'validated and resolved exactly as it is when adding', which is useful beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and it provides a specific validation behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a usage constraint. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and parameters.

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 tool with three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the primary operations, parameter requirements, and validation behavior. It does not mention return values or edge cases, but these are not essential given the simplicity. The description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the role of name and path by stating 'Provide at least one of name or path' and clarifies path validation behavior. The required id is not explicitly described, but its purpose is obvious from context and sibling tools. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and optionality.

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 tool's purpose: to rename a repository or repoint it to a new working copy path. It uses specific verbs ('rename', 'repoint') tied to the resource ('tracked repository') and distinguishes from siblings like add_repository, remove_repository, and list/get by focusing on updating existing repositories.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Rename... or repoint...') and provides a concrete usage constraint ('Provide at least one of name or path'). It also references that path validation behaves as in add_repository, giving context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling names imply the distinction.

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