gitea_write

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses strict validation behavior (ValueError with field-level detail), how to list operations via 'help', and how to retrieve JSON schemas. It lacks information on authentication, rate limits, or the side effects beyond the generic 'write' implication, but the included behavioral details are specific and useful.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean line-based breakdown of operation modes. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content. The formatting enhances scannability.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a complete self-service approach: users can query 'help' for operation lists and 'schema' for detailed parameter schemas. It covers invocation, validation, and error behavior, making it sufficiently complete for a complex dispatcher tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining the 'operation' parameter (accepts 'help', 'schema', or an op name) and the 'params' parameter (optional object with default null, used for search filters, op selection, or invocation arguments). It also clarifies validation rules, adding meaning far beyond the bare 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 'Gitea write operations — create or update resources (POST/PUT/PATCH),' clearly identifying the tool's function as a dispatcher for write operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitea_read, gitea_delete, and gitea_execute, and the specific verb+resource phrasing leaves no ambiguity.

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 conveys that this tool is for writes, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for reads use gitea_read'). The self-service help and schema mechanisms effectively guide usage for discovery, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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