Create Commit Status

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false), but the description does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency (which is false), or permissions. The openWorldHint: true suggests broader effects, but that's not explained.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not earn its place because it provides minimal value beyond the name. Concise but incomplete.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of parameters, the typical workflow, or expected outcomes. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. However, it does not mention any of the 10 parameters, including the required 'sha' and 'state'. The enum values for 'state' are not described. The agent gets no help understanding what each parameter means or how to use them.

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 tool creates or updates a commit status. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinguishable from sibling tools that don't deal with commit statuses. However, it misses the opportunity to mention that it's typically used in CI/CD pipelines.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, nor when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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