Deploy to GitHub

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context by stating it 'directly commits' to the repository, requires a GitHub token, and works with static site generators. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of the write behavior and authentication requirement.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a list of parameters, and a return-value section. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the main input modes, required authentication, and return values, which is sufficient for a deployment tool. It does not mention edge cases like conflicting sources or precondition checks (e.g., repo existence), but the output schema exists and the description is still quite complete.

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?

Although the input schema is empty, the description documents all eight parameters with their meanings, types, and optionality. It clarifies that task_id, content, and filepath are alternatives, repo and target_path are required, and branch defaults to main. This fully compensates for the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('배포합니다' - deploys) and resource ('GitHub 저장소' - GitHub repository), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling blog-management tools. It states exactly what it does: deploys blog posts to a GitHub repository via direct commits.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (final deployment of blog content to GitHub) and provides context about supported input methods (task ID, direct content, filepath). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the correct usage.

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