yuque_create_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without mentioning return values, error conditions, permissions, or non-idempotency. A create operation modifies state, yet the description does not surface any of these consequences. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It immediately conveys the core action and scope, earning every word. This is a model of conciseness.

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 the schema handling parameters, the description is thin for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention the expected response, prerequisites, error handling, or the effect of optional fields like 'public' or 'repo_type'. The core action is clear, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior and potential pitfalls.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the schema already fully explains each field. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall purpose, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high schema coverage. No further compensation is needed.

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 the verb 'Create' with the resource 'repo/book' and clarifies the target as 'for a user or group', making it specific and distinct from sibling update/delete/list operations. It clearly indicates the action and the primary scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context of creating a new resource is naturally implied by the verb 'Create', which contrasts with sibling tools like update_repo and delete_repo. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the clear action and target provide adequate guidance for when to use this tool. It could be improved by noting prerequisites like the user or group already existing, but the core usage is clear.

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