Github Create Empty Commit

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

Beyond annotations (which only indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write), the description discloses critical behavioral details: re-runs keep first-run privileges, Dependabot has a read-only token, Dependabot stops rebasing unless the message includes [dependabot skip], and GitHub signs the commit. These are high-value operational insights an agent would not get from structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent details about Dependabot and signed commits are valuable. The references to #490 and #534 and the workflow pointer are slightly extraneous but not distracting; the description remains efficiently structured.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds the necessary operational caveats around Dependabot and CI triggering. Together with the schema, an agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about the default message's [dependabot skip] behavior, but it does not explain branch/pr_number interplay, expected_head_sha, or allow_default_branch beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Pushes a commit that changes no file, so CI starts a new run.' It distinguishes itself from file-changing commit tools like github_commit_files by emphasizing 'changes no file', and it explains the CI trigger rationale. An agent can identify the exact operation 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?

The description gives a clear context for use: triggering CI without modifying files, with additional Dependabot caveats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool versus github_commit_files or github_update_pr_branch, but the purpose itself makes the primary use case evident.

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