github_actions_create_org_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action (create) without revealing side effects (e.g., what happens if variable already exists), authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. The 'body' parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)', omitting required properties like 'name' and 'value'.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. While there is no waste, the brevity leaves important gaps. A slightly longer description could include key parameters or behavioral notes 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?

Given the tool's complexity (creating a variable with an unstructured body parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body structure (required fields, allowed values), error conditions, or relationship to other variable tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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%, but the descriptions are trivial: 'org' is described as 'org' and 'body' as 'Request body (JSON object)'. These add negligible semantic value. The main description does not supplement the schema by explaining expected properties or constraints for the body object. The agent would need to infer or lookup the API specification.

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 'Create an organization variable' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (organization variable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_repo_variable' (repo-level) and 'add_selected_repo_to_org_variable' (adding access). However, it lacks context about the type of variable (GitHub Actions) and does not differentiate from 'create_org_secret' (which creates a secret, not a variable).

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 like 'create_repo_variable' or 'update_org_variable'. It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or typical usage scenarios. An explicit recommendation or exclusion would help agents decide correctly.

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