create_or_update_file

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

The description does not explain how the tool decides between creation and update, that content must be base64-encoded, or any overwrite behavior. No annotations exist to supplement, so the description carries the full burden and fails.

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 single-sentence description is concise but overly minimal. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it adequate only for the name's restatement.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It misses essential context about behavior, error cases, and usage limitations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not clarify that 'content' is base64-encoded, 'sha' is required for updates, or the structure of 'committer' and 'author' objects.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates or updates a repository file. The verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like delete_file or get_file_content, though it could specify the GitHub context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use create versus update, nor on prerequisites like the need for a SHA for updates. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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