github_token_save

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

The description adds a crucial safety guarantee: 'The token is never written to RunBeacon profiles, jobs, dashboard state, or logs.' This goes beyond the annotations' idempotent and non-destructive hints by explaining where the token is and is not stored, enhancing trust and predictability.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second gives parameter preference, and the third states a safety guarantee. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter selection, and storage safety. Although there is no output schema or explicit return-value explanation, this is acceptable for a save operation. A note on success/failure response would improve completeness, but the core context is well covered.

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 83%, and the description adds valuable decision guidance by prioritizing tokenEnvVar over token, explaining the security rationale. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Store a GitHub personal access token in the configured Git credential helper and create a safe RunBeacon profile reference,' using a specific verb, resource, and outcome. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like github_token_delete and credential_profile_save.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Prefer tokenEnvVar so the token never appears in conversation; use token only when the user explicitly provides it,' providing clear parameter-level guidance. It does not name alternative tools, but the preference is actionable and sufficient for most scenarios.

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