Take ownership of a repository

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

Discloses a human-confirmation requirement ('Asks a person first') and a two-step token flow, which are not captured in the annotations. It also explains the operational consequence of ownership (forge token used for reads/build status), adding meaningful context beyond the idempotent and destructive hints.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action, rationale, and procedural caveat. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential edge cases: why ownership matters, when to run it, and how to handle the confirmation dialog. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including confirm_token's origin as a token from a previous call. The description's mention of the two-call flow reinforces confirm_token's purpose but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete outcome: 'Makes the authenticated account the repository's owner in Woodpecker.' It also gives the trigger scenario ('fix when the previous owner left'), which clearly separates it from other repository tools like move_repository or delete_repository.

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?

Explicitly identifies the intended use case ('this is the fix when the previous owner left') and gives a conditional procedure for non-dialog clients ('call once to receive a token and again with it'). It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when not to use, but the contextual trigger is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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