Change apt repositories

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm,' which reinforces the non-read-only nature but does not disclose specific behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction found.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a second sentence for the risk warning. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Add'. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 has 10 parameters, destructive effects, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not cover parameter roles, return values, or prerequisites. The sibling list is large but no comparison provided. The description is insufficient for safe and accurate 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 only 10% (just the confirm parameter). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any of the 10 parameters, such as 'content', 'path', or 'digest'. With low coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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: 'Add, modify, or remove apt repository entries on a node.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_apt_repos_list (list only) and node_apt_update (update package cache).

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 includes a clear warning about high risk and the need for user confirmation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing repos) or provide conditions for use. The guideline is implied but not expanded.

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