Github Api Write

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: 'GitHub decides what the token may change' tells the agent authorization is delegated to the token, and the DELETE clause explains why the destructive hint is false despite this being a write tool. It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the capability and then the routing rule; nearly every clause earns its place. The only weak element is the bare 'See #543' reference, which conveys nothing to an agent that cannot resolve the issue tracker.

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?

An output schema and full annotations exist, so the description need not explain return values. For a generic open-world write endpoint it supplies the safety boundary, the auth model and the workflow pointer, which are the pieces an agent is most likely to get wrong; only error/rate-limit expectations are absent.

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 83%, so the schema already documents path, body, method, max_bytes and the GraphQL fields. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail for any parameter, leaving it at the baseline appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the exact verbs accepted (POST, PATCH, PUT), the resource (any path under api.github.com), and the GraphQL mutation variant, then explicitly distinguishes itself from github_api_delete. An agent can identify what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

It states the selection rule twice over: 'for a change no other tool makes' steers the agent toward dedicated siblings first, and 'A DELETE, and a mutation that deletes or removes something, belong to github_api_delete' gives the exact exclusion boundary with the reason. It also points to github_get_skill('api-requests') for conventions.

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