Update a forge

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an admin requirement, a two-step invocation flow, and the destructive consequence of a bad value ('locks everyone out of the instance'). It also notes that the forge is a shared dependency for logins and repository reads. It doesn't detail the exact token handshake, but this is substantial context not present in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the critical risk. The lockout warning is earned and vivid without being verbose, and every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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 destructive, admin-gated mutation, the description covers authorization, risk, and dependency criticality. It stops short of spelling out the two-step sequence explicitly (e.g., first call returns a token, second call applies it), but the schema's confirm_token description and the presence of an output schema partially fill that gap.

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 description contains no per-parameter guidance; all meaning must come from the schema, which itself leaves client, skip_verify, and oauth_client_secret undocumented at 63% coverage. The only hint related to confirm_token is the phrase 'two-step', which is not parameter-level semantics. The schema and output schema carry the burden.

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 'Changes a forge configuration' — a concrete verb and object that clearly maps to the update-forge operation and separates it from get_forge, create_forge, and delete_forge. It doesn't enumerate what configuration fields can change, but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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 operational context: 'Admin only' sets the authorization bar, 'two-step' flags the invocation process, and the lockout warning explains the high blast radius. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but for a config-update tool the usage context is enough to route an agent.

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