Create a gist

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical non-obvious behavior: topics cannot be set via API, public/unlisted visibility requires a confirm_token two-step flow where the first call is refused, and expiry is immutable after creation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 compact sentences, each carrying essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each add one important constraint or workflow detail.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description still covers all material non-obvious aspects: the two-step confirmation flow, irreversible expiry, and API limitation on topics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly and safely.

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 coverage is high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining how visibility relates to confirm_token, when the confirmation token is needed, and that expiry must be decided here because it can't be changed later. It doesn't need to restate parameters already well documented 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?

The description opens with a precise verb ('Create'), resource ('gist'), and input shape ('from one or more files'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_gist, list_gists, and delete_gist.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance, such as 'Use "private" unless the user asked for otherwise' and notes that expiry can only be set at creation time. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the creation-only scope and timing guidance make when-to-use clear.

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