github_issues_bootstrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses the dry_run behavior (returns commands), the live-mode approval gate ("human approval"), the auth model ("gh runs as the configured GitHub account"), and the n/a condition. It omits details on the mutation's destructive potential (what 'refresh' overwrites) and rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and packs behavioral detail into a compact space. The dense multi-clause sentence with parentheticals is slightly run-on, but every clause adds 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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the approval gate, dry-run/live distinction, and the n/a case well. It is largely complete, with only the approval_id parameter and overwrite semantics left unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies dry_run semantics and notes app_dir is used to read the run option from the spec, and implies repo's <owner>/<repo> format, but approval_id is entirely undocumented in both the description and schema, leaving a gap.

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 (Create/refresh) and resource (the label set) plus the exact target (<owner>/<repo>) and enumerates the labels. It is clearly distinguishable from github_issue_create (issues) and github_create_repo (repo creation) without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a clear when-not condition ("n/a ... when the user turned off the github_issues run option") and explains the dry_run vs live mode split. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related operations, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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