Activate repository

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that activation installs a webhook and enables pipeline runs, which are important side effects. It also signals the precondition that the repository must already exist in the forge.

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 with no filler: the first sentence conveys the core action and consequence, and the second handles parameter disambiguation and retrieval guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, effects, preconditions, and parameter sourcing. The idempotent annotation already addresses the behavior for already-active repositories, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Although the schema already describes forge_remote_id, the tool description goes further by explicitly ruling out owner/name pairs and Woodpecker IDs, and by providing a concrete lookup path through list_repositories. This eliminates a common point of confusion and materially helps the agent supply the correct value.

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 ('Turns on Woodpecker'), the target resource (a repository that exists in the forge), and the concrete effects (installs the webhook and makes pipelines run). It clearly differentiates activation from repository creation and from sibling tools by focusing on the enablement action.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to enable Woodpecker for an existing forge repository. It also provides important usage guidance by explaining how to obtain the correct identifier via list_repositories with include_inactive=true. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the activation use case is distinct and unambiguous enough that no additional exclusions are strictly necessary.

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