create_commit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('Create'), but doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'Created status info' contains. The description adds basic behavioral context but lacks important operational details for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage context, then documents parameters clearly in a formatted section, and ends with return information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. The 'Returns' section is vague ('Created status info'), and there's no information about permissions, error conditions, or system constraints that would be important for a CI/CD integration tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation in the Args section. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides enum values for 'state', notes optional parameters, and gives examples like 'my-ci-system' for the key parameter. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose as 'Create a build status for a commit' with the specific verb 'create' and resource 'build status', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_commit_statuses (which retrieves rather than creates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond this basic distinction.

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 clear context with 'Use this to report CI/CD status from external systems,' giving a specific use case. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name explicit alternatives, but the context is sufficient for understanding its primary application.

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