Create repository file

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. Description adds that it commits to an existing branch, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not mention potential failures (e.g., if file exists) or side effects beyond the commit. Minimal extra value beyond 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?

Single, focused sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose and encoding options. Perfectly 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?

With 9 parameters and 5 required, and no detailed parameter guidance, the description is under-specified. It lacks information on error conditions, behavior when the file already exists, and the role of optional parameters like start_branch. Output schema exists but does not cover behavioral ambiguity.

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 only 11%, so description must compensate. It clarifies encoding ('UTF-8 or base64') and mentions 'existing branch', but leaves many parameters undefined: content, path, author_name, author_email, start_branch, commit_message. Fails to explain how these interact or any defaults.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Create a new UTF-8 or base64 repository file and commit it to an existing branch.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (repository file), and commit action, distinguishing from update_file and delete_file. Mentions encoding options, which is 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?

Implies usage for new files only ('new'), but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like create_commit or update_file. Does not provide context on when this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the word 'new'.

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