create_repository

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

With no annotations at all, the description bears the full burden, and it does disclose one valuable behavioral fact beyond the schema: the repository is initialized with a README. However, it omits mutation-relevant behavior such as what happens if the name is already taken, required token scopes, whether an organization can be targeted, and whether creation is reversible.

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 short sentences: what it does, when to use it, then a key side effect. Purpose is front-loaded, nothing is repeated, and every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 a simple 3-parameter write tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the README side effect. What is missing is failure and permission context – name collisions, auth requirements, and account/owner semantics – which matters most precisely because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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% – name format, isPrivate default, and description length are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of private vs. public choice, no naming constraints, no org/owner option), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Crea un NUEVO repositorio de GitHub') plus the target scope ('en la cuenta del usuario autenticado') and the created artifact's initial state ('con un README inicial'). An agent knows exactly what will exist after the call and that no sibling (create_commit, create_issue, list_repositories) is implied.

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 gives explicit positive triggers ('cuando el usuario pida crear, iniciar o armar un repositorio nuevo'), covering three phrasings a user might employ. It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. against an organization account or when a repo already exists, but no sibling is genuinely confusable here.

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