github_issue_propose

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

Despite readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses that no external write reaches GitHup until a later commit — genuinely load-bearing context beyond what the annotations provide. This also aligns with destructiveHint=false and clarifies the non-idempotent preview trait. It doesn't cover auth requirements or failure modes, but the core safety trait is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the primary purpose ('Preview a GitHup issue creation') and then the critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the preview/commit boundary, and names the committing sibling. A minor gap is that it doesn't hint what the preview returns (e.g., a proposal to hand to action_commit), but the simple parameter set and annotations keep this adequate.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It contextualizes repository/title/body as the components of a GitHup issue and implies they will later be committed, but it adds no per-parameter format or constraint details (e.g., 'owner/repo' syntax). The parameter names are self-evident, making the gap moderate rather than severe.

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 ('Preview') and resource ('GitHup issue creation'), and the second clause ('nothing reaches GitHup until action_commit confirms it') sharply differentates it from the complementary sibling action_commit. An agent can immediately tell this is the staging step, not the publishing step.

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 second sentence explicitly places the tool in a two-phase workflow: preview here, confirm with action_commit. It names the sibling that completes the operation, which gives clear context for when to pair them. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions, but the propose/commit boundary is explicit enough.

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