gh_cluster_create

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

Annotations indicate writeHint=true (readOnlyHint: false), so the mutation aspect is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Group', such as whether existing clusters with the same name are overwritten, or if components must already exist. Minimal 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief given the tool's 2 required parameters; a slightly longer, structured description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 lacks sufficient detail for the tool's complexity. Despite having an output schema, it fails to differentiate from siblings, explain parameter purpose, or provide usage context. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'name' or 'component_ids' parameters. While 'named cluster' hints at the name parameter, the mapping to input schema is weak. The description should at least state that 'name' is the cluster name and 'component_ids' are the IDs of components to include.

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 uses a specific verb 'Group' and identifies the resource 'components into a named cluster', clearly distinguishing it from related tools like gh_cluster_expand. It directly conveys the tool's purpose with no ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gh_group or gh_cluster_expand). No context about prerequisites, expected behavior, or exclusions is given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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