Repair repository webhooks

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

The description discloses a mutating repair operation that is consistent with the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true). It adds useful behavioral context for instance scope: it affects every repository and hits the forge API once per repository. It does not fully explain the confirmation flow, but the schema's confirm_token field covers that.

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 compact sentences: first states the core action, second gives the practical use case, third adds the scope caveat with cost implications. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant details.

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 sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to invoke the tool, and the schema fills in parameter specifics (confirm_token, repo_id, admin-only). An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only minor ambiguity is the exact two-step flow, but confirm_token's schema description clarifies it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning for the scope parameter by describing the instance-wide effect ('every repository on the server... hits the forge API once per repository'), which goes beyond the schema's terse 'repairs all of them (admin only).'

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'Re-installs the forge webhook and refreshes the stored repository data.' It then names the exact problem it fixes ('pushes no longer start a pipeline' after a rename or URL change), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_repository or activate_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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'This is the fix for "pushes no longer start a pipeline" after a repository was renamed or the Woodpecker URL changed.' It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the triggering condition is unambiguous and 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.