github_create_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior for category_name resolution (case-insensitive, accepts name or slug) and the default repo/hub, but says nothing about authorization requirements, visibility/permissions of the created discussion, or failure behavior for an invalid category.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and default, followed by the parameter nuance. No filler; the mixed Italian/English phrasing is slightly awkward but does not impede comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the category-resolution rule is covered. However, for an unannotated write tool with 0% schema description coverage, the absence of any permission/auth or side-effect caveats leaves a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: category_name (name or slug, case-insensitive, with a concrete example) and repo_full_name (explicit default). body and title are left implicit, which is acceptable given they are self-evident strings.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea una GitHub Discussion') along with the scoping constraint (a category in the repository), which distinguishes it from github_list_discussions and github_get_discussion. It does not explicitly contrast with github_add_discussion_comment, but the creation semantics are unmistakable.

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?

Points the agent to github_list_discussion_categories to discover valid category options, and states the default repo so the caller knows repo_full_name is optional. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., commenting on an existing discussion), but the routing guidance for the key ambiguity is present.

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