gitea_create_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal detail. It mentions 'commit message' implying git commit creation, but fails to disclose: whether the operation is atomic, what happens on file conflicts, rate limiting, or the response format. The distinction between 'branch' and 'new_branch' parameters is not explained.

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 a single sentence and front-loaded with the action, which is efficient. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value, and the extreme brevity is inappropriate given the 11-parameter complexity with zero schema documentation.

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 an 11-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits crucial git-specific context such as branch creation behavior, file encoding options, and conflict handling that an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While it mentions 'commit message' (mapping to the 'message' parameter), it provides no guidance for the other 10 parameters, including critical ones like 'content_is_base64' (encoding behavior), 'site' (instance targeting), or the branching logic ('branch' vs 'new_branch').

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 core action ('Create a new file') and target resource ('Gitea repository'). However, while it implies creation of new files only (distinguishing from the sibling 'gitea_update_file'), it does not explicitly clarify behavior when the file already exists or explicitly reference the update alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'gitea_update_file' or 'gitea_delete_file'. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., repository existence, authentication requirements) and does not indicate failure modes such as what happens if the file already exists.

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