github_create_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the repo is PRIVATE, the account is resolved from `github_user` falling back to the active gh login, dry_run defaults to true and only echoes the command, and a live run requires human approval. It omits failure/idempotency behavior (e.g. what happens if the repo already exists), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the critical constraint (PRIVATE, account resolution) front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, and the safety story (dry_run + approval) is solid for a mutation tool with no annotations. Gaps remain: no param docs for app_dir/repo_name and no differentiation from github_push.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run well ('returns the exact command without running it') and implies approval_id via the human-approval gate, but app_dir and repo_name are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Open a PRIVATE GitHub repo ... + push') with the visibility constraint front-loaded, so the agent knows exactly what is created. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling github_push, which it partially overlaps with via '+ push'.

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 dry_run default and the human-approval gate for live runs give useful workflow context, implying the intended two-step usage. But it never says when to use this versus github_push or github_issues_bootstrap, and no prerequisites (auth/token) are stated.

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