github_repos_create_in_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Create', implying mutation, but does not mention required permissions (e.g., admin:org), side effects, or constraints (e.g., repo name uniqueness). With zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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, which is concise. However, it sacrifices important details (e.g., what the body should contain), making it minimally adequate but not efficient in conveying necessary information.

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 complexity of creating an organization repository and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., the created repo object), required body fields (e.g., name), and potential errors. It provides none of this, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% (both params have descriptions), but those descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 repository' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from tools like github_repos_create_fork which creates a fork, not an org repo. However, it does not specify whether it creates a repo under the authenticated user's org or any org, nor mention that it requires the repo name in the body.

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_repos_create_fork, github_repos_create_commit_comment, or other repo creation tools. The agent has no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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