Move repository to a new owner

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

The description provides excellent behavioral detail about the HTTP 500 bug, the fact that the move still happens, and the no-retry instruction. However, it directly contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation: it says retrying would move the repository a second time and that duplicate calls fail, which means the operation is not idempotent as annotated. Per the rubric, a contradiction with annotations forces a score of 1.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core purpose, then covers the most important safety warning, version-specific behavior, the alternative webhook path, and a concrete follow-up action. The length is justified by the dangerous failure mode.

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 complete for a tool with a tricky failure mode: it covers prerequisites, the two-step workflow, when the tool should not be used, version-specific exceptions, retry guidance, and how to verify success. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for repo_id, to, and confirm_token. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but it does not need to because the schema already documents the parameters well. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Tells Woodpecker that a repository moved') and immediately distinguishes the tool by clarifying it does NOT move anything in the forge. This removes ambiguity and clearly separates it from forge-side move operations and from sibling tools like get_repository or update_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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('do that first, then call this'), explicit when-not-needed guidance ('forges that send webhooks report a rename and Woodpecker follows by itself'), and warns that calling afterwards fails. It also recommends reading the repository back with get_repository before deciding anything, which is actionable usage direction.

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