Create a new Git tag, optionally annotated with a message, without moving or replacing an existing tag.
Create a tag (annotated if message given). Never moves or replaces an existing tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| repo | No | . | |
| target | No | HEAD | |
| message | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds real value on top: the message parameter switches to an annotated tag, and an existing tag is never moved or replaced — contextualizing the non-idempotent hint as an error rather than an overwrite.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the safety guarantee second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the non-overwrite behavior is covered. But with four undocumented parameters and a mutation tool, the description leaves gaps around what target accepts, what repo scopes, and whether the tag is local-only.
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% and none of the four properties carry descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only explains one parameter meaningfully (message → annotated tag); name, repo, and target (default HEAD) receive no explanation at all, leaving target's semantics opaque.
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: 'Create a tag', with a parenthetical that clarifies the annotated-vs-lightweight branch. It doesn't name or differentiate from the nearby sibling git_branch_create, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. clean working tree, remote vs local tag), and no named alternatives. The 'never moves or replaces' line is a behavioral guarantee, not a usage condition, so the agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.