stale_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior — side effects, return values, prerequisites, or state changes. The two-word description reveals nothing about what happens when the tool is called. With a mutation-capable name like 'stale event' and a separate read sibling, behavioral disclosure is critical and entirely absent.

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?

This is under-specification, not conciseness. Two words carry zero usable information for a 5-parameter, schema-less tool. While brevity is generally positive, the description is too short to earn its slot and adds no value beyond the name itself.

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 tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and a confusing sibling landscape, the description is radically incomplete. An agent has no information about what the tool returns, when to call it, or how the parameters should be constructed.

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 0% across 5 parameters including a nested object with required fields (`repository_id`, `target_commit`). The description adds no meaning to any parameter; an agent must guess what `context`, `operation_id`, `schema_version`, etc. represent and how they interrelate. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 is literally "stale event" — a pure tautology that restates the tool name without a verb or resource. It provides no indication of what the tool does, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the sibling `stale_event_read`, leaving the semantic relationship between the two entirely unclear.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given that a sibling `stale_event_read` exists, the agent has no way to know which one to invoke for a given task, and nothing in the description disambiguates them.

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