eco_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the API clones a repo, creates a file, commits, and optionally creates a PR. However, it does not mention failure scenarios (e.g., duplicate ECO ID), permissions required, or the irreversible nature of commits. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then succinctly describe the process. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action but omits important context such as prerequisites (e.g., ECNs must exist), side effects (repo changes are permanent), and constraints (ECO ID uniqueness). The output schema likely documents return values, but the missing context about preconditions and failure modes leaves the agent underinformed.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter relationships or valid values, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('create') and the resource ('Engineering Change Order'), and specifies that it bundles ECNs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ecn_create (creates individual ECNs) and eco_approve (different action). The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage through the name, but lacks guidance for the agent to differentiate from the many sibling eco/ecn tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are given.

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