gitea_write

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

Without annotations, the description discloses validation behavior ('Params validated strictly: unknown keys, wrong types, missing required → ValueError') and filtering behavior for help. It does not mention side effects like destruction or idempotency, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 concise, well-structured with clear sections for help, schema, and invocation. No extraneous words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers usage scenarios and validation, but lacks details on output format or examples of operation names. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, it is mostly 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the semantics of both parameters: operation can be 'help', 'schema', or an operation name, and params is used accordingly (filtering for help, op key for schema, arbitrary for invocation). This adds crucial meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gitea write operations — create or update resources (POST/PUT/PATCH).' This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitea_read and gitea_delete.

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 provides detailed usage patterns for help, schema, and invocation, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. However, the sibling names provide implicit context.

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