git_update_credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating but non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful scope ('current user in a workspace') but does not disclose whether existing credentials are overwritten or whether a prior Git connection is required.

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?

A single, focused sentence that contains no filler and states the action, resource, and scope immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, but it leaves out behavioral context such as what 'credentials configuration' means in practice and when a connectionId is relevant. An agent could call it correctly but may not understand the full impact.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional semantics about the source enum values or the conditional connectionId requirement, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('Git credentials configuration') scoped to 'the current user in a workspace'. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_get_credentials and git_connect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_connect, git_initialize_connection, or git_get_credentials. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria.

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