Register GitHub Actions Workflow

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful security-relevant behavior: only the token environment-variable name is stored, while token values remain in the runtime environment. This goes beyond what annotations reveal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a crucial security caveat without unnecessary filler. 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?

This is a registration tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. The description covers core inputs and token security but does not explain post-registration behavior, return values, or the role of parameters like check_interval_minutes and branch, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic context by noting the workflow can be a file or ID and clarifying token_env behavior, but it largely relies on the schema for parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'Register' with the resource 'GitHub Actions workflow' and lists the key identifying parameters (owner, repository, workflow file or ID). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like register_gitlab_pipeline or check_github_actions.

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 makes clear this tool is for registering GitHub Actions workflows, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, though sibling names fill some of that gap.

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