Create repository tag

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

Annotations already flag that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tag is created from a branch, ref, or commit SHA, but it does not disclose permission requirements, annotated vs. lightweight tag behavior, or conflict/overwrite behavior. No contradiction exists.

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, action-first sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description is usable, but it remains incomplete for three undocumented parameters and provides no context about errors, permissions, or annotated-tag behavior. It is enough for identifying the operation but not fully self-contained.

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 25%, with only `project` described in the schema. The description clarifies that `ref` can be a branch, ref, or commit SHA, but it leaves `tag_name` and `message` semantics unexplained. Low schema coverage requires more compensation than this.

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 'Create a Git tag from a branch, ref, or commit SHA,' which is a specific verb+object+source combination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_tags, get_tag, delete_tag, and create_release.

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 phrase 'from a branch, ref, or commit SHA' implies when the tool is applicable, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as create_release or create_branch. This is implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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