github_repos_create_or_update_file_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'create or update' but does not disclose how it determines which action to perform, whether it overwrites without confirmation, or the need for a commit message. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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, very concise. However, it sacrifices essential information. It could be restructured to include key details 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?

For a mutation tool that creates or updates files, the description is too minimal. It omits details about required body fields, encoding, commit messages, and return values. Given no output schema, the agent has no way to understand what will be returned.

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 descriptions are just field names; the description adds no meaning. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' but does not specify required subfields like content, encoding, or message. An agent cannot determine what to pass in the body.

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 or update file contents' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_file or get_content, though it could be more specific about the difference between create and update.

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. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), when to prefer create vs update, or any limitations. The description is insufficient for an agent to decide when 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.