put_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions idempotency for updates when sha is supplied, which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or behavior on conflicts. The description adds some context beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 one concise sentence (13 words) that front-loads the core action and key trait (idempotency). There is no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (5 required) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., repo existence, access permissions) or error conditions. While output schema exists, more context on the tool's place in workflows would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining that sha is 'required when updating' and idempotent behavior, but the schema already describes most parameters adequately.

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 'Create or update a file via the Contents API.' It uses specific verbs (create/update) and resource (file via Contents API). Among siblings like get_file (read-only) and merge_pr (PR merging), it unambiguously identifies this as the write tool for files.

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 implies usage for creating or updating files, and the idempotency condition when sha is supplied. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file for reading or merge_pr for pull requests. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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