Protect tag

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that an "explicit acknowledgement is required to prevent accidental governance changes", which clarifies why the acknowledge_protection_change parameter exists and signals that this action has governance impact.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: one states the core action and workflow context, the other explains the acknowledgment requirement's rationale.

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?

The description provides essential governance context and references capability preflight, but it is incomplete for a 5-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage. It does not explain how to configure the policy or what the access-control parameters mean, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like name, allowed_to_create, or create_access_level. It only mentions the acknowledgement requirement, which is already enforced by the schema's const and required fields.

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 protected-tag policy". It names the specific resource (protected-tag policy) and distinguishes this from branch-protection siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like protect_branch.

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 "after a capability preflight" provides explicit sequential context for when to call this tool, implying the agent should first check capabilities. It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is clear.

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