Crear repositorio de GitHub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only hints at auth context via 'cuenta de GitHub autenticada'. It says nothing about side effects, what happens on a duplicate/invalid name, whether the repo name is claimed immediately, or what permissions are required for this write operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger condition, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter create tool with no output schema, and the schema covers parameters well. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description omits failure behavior and any indication of what the call yields (e.g., the created repository), leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, with each parameter (name, private, description) documented including pattern, length limits and a default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea un nuevo repositorio') and scopes it to the authenticated GitHub account. It is clearly distinguishable from list-repositories/create-issue/create-commit by resource type, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with synonyms ('cuando el usuario solicite crear, generar o iniciar un nuevo repositorio'), which is solid when-to-use guidance. It offers no when-not conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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