repopilot_write_runbook

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'This inserts a new runbook and appends runbook evidence,' which clarifies the side effect beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose and most critical constraint (verification requirement) are front-loaded, and the operational effect is stated efficiently.

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 write operation with all parameters already documented in the schema, the description provides the essential precondition (verification) and the effect (insert + append evidence). It does not explain what 'runbook evidence' means or what the response looks like, but these are not strictly required for the agent to call the tool correctly, given no output schema and the operation's simplicity.

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%, meaning every parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description itself provides no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Archive') and resource ('a verified maintenance outcome as a reusable repository runbook'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding unverified hypotheses and pull-request review runs, making the tool's unique role evident.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('only after independent verification for the source run') and when not to ('do not archive an unverified hypothesis or a pull-request review run'). However, it does not name alternative tools for those cases (e.g., repopilot_append_evidence or repopilot_request_approval), so it lacks explicit alternative names.

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