github_repos_create_commit_signature_protection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what the protection actually enforces.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, though it remains front-loaded.

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 (create operation with required parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the protection does, what the response looks like, or how it relates to other tools like get/delete for the same resource.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are merely parameter names (owner, repo, branch). The tool description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics beyond the obvious.

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 states it creates commit signature protection, which is a specific action and resource. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without elaboration on what 'commit signature protection' entails, making it minimally informative.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_repos_delete_commit_signature_protection or github_repos_get_commit_signature_protection. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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