ncloud_sourcecommit_edit_repo

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a mutation (write operation), does not specify required permissions, or clarify whether missing optional parameters preserve existing values or reset them. These gaps are critical for safe usage.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. No unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the tool's behavior (e.g., whether it updates only provided fields), expected return value, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only summarizing that 'description' and 'service integrations' can be edited. It does not elaborate on the boolean parameters or provide additional context about parameter interactions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('SourceCommit repository'), and specifies the scope ('settings (description, service integrations)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_repo, delete_repo, or get_repo.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using create_repo for new repositories or other edit tools). No context about prerequisites or complementary tools.

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