gitea_admin_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses that operations are write-oriented, describes strict parameter validation with field-level error details, and explains the behavior of help, schema, and invocation modes. It could be more explicit about side effects like actual data mutation, but 'write operations' suffices.

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?

The description is concise, using a few sentences to cover all operational modes. It is structured in a readable bullet-point-like manner. However, the formatting could be cleaner with explicit lists for better scannability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple operations like help, schema, invoke), the description covers all aspects thoroughly. It explains each operational mode, error handling, and parameter behavior. No output schema exists, but the description implies the nature of returns (list of ops, schema, or invocation results). This is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 0% coverage with no descriptions, but the description adds comprehensive semantics for both parameters: operation strings ('help', 'schema', '<OpName>') and params (optional object used for search filtering and invocation arguments). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool is for admin write operations (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE /admin/*) and admin-scope actions like running cron jobs. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as gitea_admin_read and gitea_write by specifying the scope and HTTP methods.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for admin write operations and admin-scope actions. It describes how to use help and schema operations for exploration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with sibling tools, missing clear exclusions.

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