yuque_update_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says this is a PUT update and names four fields, but it does not explain side effects, whether omitted fields are preserved, authentication requirements, or what happens to related data like TOC when toc is passed. The external reference is a pointer, not usable behavioral context.

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 very short and front-loads the core action: update repo metadata. The endpoint and documentation pointer are included without wasted words. It is slightly cryptic due to the mixed Chinese reference and terse fragments, but structurally efficient.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the required book_id, does not explain toc/raw behavior, and does not clarify partial versus full update semantics. It leaves important invocation context to the schema and an external doc.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including book_id and raw. The description lists only name/description/slug/public and adds no syntax or format details beyond that partial enumeration. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Update repo name/description/slug/public.' It distinguishes this tool from repo creation, deletion, and retrieval siblings. However, it omits updateable fields such as toc/raw and the required book_id, so it is clear but not fully precise.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives like yuque_update_toc or yuque_update_doc, nor does it state prerequisites such as required permissions or the required book_id. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and listed fields.

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