Create Lizard Git repository

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-readonly, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: default privacy, empty repo until first repo_commit unless readme:true, and collaborator inheritance from workspace. It does not disclose failure modes such as name collisions or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default behavior, then options, then the deployment follow-up. No filler; every clause carries actionable 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?

No output schema and 6 parameters at 33% coverage, so the description should do more. It covers the main options and the post-create deploy path but omits return values, name-format constraints, and the meaning of defaultBranch/description.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains readme and workspace semantics, but leaves defaultBranch and description unexplained, and the name pattern is only in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Lizard Git repository'), clearly distinct from sibling read tools like repo_show/repo_list. It does not explicitly contrast with other create tools (workspace_create, service_create), but the verb+resource 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?

Gives concrete selection guidance: private by default, readme:true to seed content, workspace to grant collaborators, and explicit next-step routing ('To deploy it, service_create with repoUrl lizard:owner/name'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives for repo creation itself.

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