set_source_github

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and a prerequisite, omitting details about side effects (e.g., triggering redeploy, reverting) or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information, effectively front-loading the core purpose and a key prerequisite.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and being a configuration action, the description lacks context about the operation's impact (e.g., effect on existing source, deploy trigger, return value). Without an output schema, more explanation is needed.

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?

All 6 parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage), meeting the baseline. The description adds no additional semantic value or guidance beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action ('configura a source') and resource ('repositório GitHub'), distinguishing it from other source-setting tools like set_source_image. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 description includes a prerequisite ('repo must be connected in Easypanel'), providing a usage condition. But it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., when to use set_source_image instead).

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