ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a mutation operation ('Edit') but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or whether changes are reversible. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary words. A slightly more detailed explanation of return behavior could improve it, but it is already concise.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated repo details or success status). It also lacks guidance on required permissions. However, the parameters and action are clear enough for basic use.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds value by summarizing the editable categories ('description, service integrations'), but does not provide additional details beyond the 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 action ('Edit'), the resource ('SourceCommit repository'), the identifier method ('by ID'), and the editable fields ('description, service integrations'). This distinguishes it from other SourceCommit tools like create, delete, or get.

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 implies the tool is for modifying repository settings and that the repository ID is required. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo (which may edit by name) or other sibling tools.

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