Add a forge

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, so the mutation behavior is expected. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the admin-only restriction and the external prerequisite about the OAuth application, which are not visible in the schema or annotations. This goes beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional admin/prerequisite guidance is compact and relevant. 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?

Given the fully documented schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete for a create operation. It covers authorization and the key prerequisite. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention that this operation will not overwrite an existing forge, but the word 'additional' implies it sufficiently.

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 has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between the OAuth parameters and the forge-side setup: the OAuth application must exist first and use this Woodpecker instance as the callback. This helps an agent understand why client/oauth_client_secret/oauth_host are needed, adding value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Registers') with a clear resource ('an additional forge'), which unambiguously identifies this as the create-type operation. It is easily distinguished from siblings like update_forge, delete_forge, and list_forges, and the title 'Add a forge' reinforces the intent.

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 clear context: this is for registering a new forge and is admin-only. It also states a prerequisite (the OAuth application must already exist on the forge side with Woodpecker as the callback), which tells an agent when it is appropriate to call this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with update_forge or delete_forge, but the create-oriented wording makes the intended use clear.

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