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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool commits changes, defaults to the dev branch, avoids touching prod, and has two distinct edit modes. It could go further by explaining what happens on failure or what the commit response looks like, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 dense but well organized, starting with the core action and immediately presenting the two modes. Every section earns its place: mode selection, large-file guidance, prerequisite reading, branch safety, and promotion path. There is minimal redundancy given the amount of operational guidance packed in.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decisions: which mode to use, when to use each parameter group, the branch default, and the safe promotion workflow. It does not describe return values or error cases, but the provided guidance is sufficient for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it connects content to FULL FILE mode, connects search/replace to surgical edits, gives a concrete >5KB threshold, and explains that reading first ensures exact search text. This meaningfully enriches the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a file in the solution's GitHub repo and commit.' It also clearly explains the two operating modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the closely named sibling ateam_github_write, so an agent could still hesitate about which tool to choose.

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 gives explicit, actionable guidance: use FULL FILE for new/small files, use SEARCH/REPLACE for large files, always read the file first with ateam_github_read, default to dev branch, use ateam_github_promote for dev→main, and pass ref:'main' only for emergency hotfixes. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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