Crear commit en GitHub

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 it creates or updates a file and generates a commit, which is useful, but it does not state permission requirements, whether existing files are overwritten, whether the commit is pushed, or any rate limits. A mutation tool needs more disclosure than this.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately; no filler or redundancy.

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 schema is rich and no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation operation with no annotations, the description omits important context such as authorization needs, overwrite behavior, and default branch handling, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent calling the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Crea o actualiza un archivo... y genera un commit'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create-repository or create-issue, which operate on different resources.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Usa este tool cuando el usuario quiera crear un archivo, modificar su contenido o guardar cambios mediante un commit'), covering the main scenarios. However, it does not name any alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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