create_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether tags are immutable once created, rate limits, or what happens if a tag with the same name already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral 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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides organized parameter documentation with helpful examples, and ends with a brief returns statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant 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?

For a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. The 'Returns: Created tag info' is minimal but acknowledges output. However, without annotations covering safety, permissions, or side effects, and with no output schema, the description doesn't fully compensate for these structural gaps.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: 'repo_slug: Repository slug', 'name: Tag name (e.g., "v1.0.0")', 'target: Commit hash or branch name to tag', and 'message: Optional tag message (for annotated tags)'. The examples and clarifications add substantial value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('Create a new tag') and resource ('in a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_tag' or 'list_tags'. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_branch_restriction' or 'create_commit_status', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there's no contextual usage information to help an agent choose between similar creation tools.

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