github_actions_add_selected_repo_to_org_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a mutation action without revealing whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the repo already exists, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise (6 words) and front-loads the action. However, it omits essential details that would require additional sentences. While not verbose, it leans toward under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain the relationship between variables and repositories, prerequisites (e.g., existing variable), or the outcome. The description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a complex GitHub Actions operation.

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?

Though schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'org', 'name', 'repository_id'), adding no meaning. The tool description itself does not explain what 'name' refers to (variable name) or the format of 'repository_id'. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Add selected repository to an organization variable' clearly states the action (add) and the target (selected repository to an organization variable). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' (handles secrets) or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_variable' (removes instead of adds).

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 such as 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_variable'. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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