Connector: Github act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it is a write operation: it does not warn that delete/archive are irreversible, nor mention auth, permissions, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety signal, the description contributes very little behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical action list is useful for scanning. It is efficiently sized for the information it conveys.

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?

For a generic write-dispatcher with a nested params object and no output schema, the annotations cover destructiveness but the description omits which resource types each action targets and how params map to actions. It is minimally sufficient rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents action_type, resource_id, and the nested params object. The description only echoes the allowed action values already present in the enum description and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute a write action') and resource ('GitHub'), and enumerates the action categories it covers (reply, create, update, delete, archive, label, send, move). This lets an agent distinguish it from connector_github_fetch and connector_github_search, which are read-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 phrase 'write action' implies the boundary against read-oriented siblings (github_fetch/github_search), so the usage context is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing among the listed action types. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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