Update repository settings

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

Annotations already convey read-only=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags: partial-update patch semantics and the security consequence of the 'trusted' flag (elevated container privileges, administrator-only change). No contradiction with 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and the patch behavior; the second highlights the most important security caveat. Everything earns its place.

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?

Despite 12 parameters, the schema provides detailed descriptions for every parameter and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description covers the general behavior and the main sensitive flag. It could mention confirm_token requirements or asynchronous effects, but these are already documented in the schema. Overall adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds cross-cutting meaning beyond the schema: that only passed fields are changed, and that the trusted flags share an elevated-privilege security implication. This helps the agent apply consistent semantics across all parameters.

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 ('Changes Woodpecker settings of a repository') with a clear resource, and the partial-update note ('Only the fields you pass are touched') adds precision. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like get_repository, delete_repository, activate_repository, and repair_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 purpose implies when to use it — when repository settings must be modified. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as activate_repository or repair_repository. Usage must be inferred rather than stated.

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