create_github_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving 'directly to the GitHub repository' and the duplication-avoidance workflow, which adds useful context beyond basic creation. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects (e.g., GitHub API rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with a clear workflow guideline. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The emojis are slightly decorative but don't significantly impact clarity. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the emojis more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by specifying the GitHub integration and workflow prerequisites. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error conditions or response format, leaving some gaps for a creation tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 states the specific action ('Create New Prompt') and resource ('save it directly to the GitHub repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_prompts' or 'get_prompt' which retrieve rather than create. The emojis add emphasis but don't obscure the core purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Always use search_prompts first to check if a similar prompt already exists. Only create new prompts when needed to avoid duplicates.' This clearly directs the agent to a specific workflow and names the alternative tool.

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