Build-in-Public: GitHub authorize link

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; description adds crucial context by emphasizing SIDE-EFFECT-FREE, explains that the connection only comes after user action, and warns the agent not to assume a connection. Also details authUrl/expiresAt/instructions return and error code meanings.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Although long, each sentence carries essential operational guidance (side-effect warning, expiration, flow, errors) that prevents misuse. Slightly verbose but justified.

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?

Despite no output schema and zero params, the description fully specifies the output fields, the user flow, follow-up status tool, and error semantics. This is a complete operational specification for the 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?

No parameters exist (input schema empty), so baseline 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the return contract (authUrl, expiresAt, instructions) and how to relay them to the user, which is beyond schema coverage.

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 "Generate a 'click to authorize GitHub' link for Build-in-Public Autopilot", using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts with actual connection ("never connects...") and points to sibling build_in_public_status for checking outcomes, distinguishing itself from related tools.

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?

Clearly states when to use: when you need an authorization URL. Provides explicit exclusion: 'the agent must NOT treat it as having connected a repo.' Also directs to build_in_public_status for checking the outcome, offering an explicit alternative. Covers error handling and action steps.

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