create_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context beyond the schema: the annotated vs lightweight tag distinction and the conditional requirement of commitId/branchName. This is sufficient for simple tag creation, though it doesn't cover edge cases like overwriting existing tags.

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 every phrase earns its place. It covers purpose, parameter conditions, and tag types without redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tag-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It explains the conditional requirements, the optional message behavior, and the project context, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to guess.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that commitId and branchName are alternatives (at least one required, even though not in the required list) and explaining that message creates an annotated tag. This goes beyond the per-parameter descriptions in 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 clearly states the tool creates a new Git tag in a GitFlic project, using the specific verb 'Create' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and get_tag by focusing on creation, and there are no other create-tag tools among siblings.

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 explicit usage context: it specifies that either commitId or branchName must be provided, and explains the difference between annotated (with message) and lightweight (without) tags. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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