github_projects_create_view_for_org

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the action itself. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing views. It is purely functional with no transparency.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could be improved by including critical information without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. Important context about what constitutes a view, required body fields, and return value are missing, making it difficult to use correctly without external knowledge.

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%, giving each parameter a minimal description. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning—particularly for the 'body' parameter, which is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying required fields like name or columns. With full coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.

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 clearly states the tool creates a view for an organization-owned project, distinguishing it from the sibling 'github_projects_create_view_for_user' which targets user-owned projects. The verb 'Create' and resource 'view' are specific, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_projects_create_view_for_user' or other project tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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