Github Create Empty Commit

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the commit changes no file, the re-run inherits the first run's privileges (read-only for Dependabot), and Dependabot stops rebasing unless [dependabot skip] is present. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and privilege nuance an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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 purpose and its CI rationale are front-loaded, and the workflow pointer is kept to a final line. The middle sentences on privileges and Dependabot rebasing are dense but each carries real behavioral information, so little is wasted.

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 exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the Dependabot/privilege caveats plus a skill pointer for conventions. The only mild gap is that no sibling alternative is contrasted for the CI-trigger use case.

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% and the schema already documents branch, pr_number, expected_head_sha, and allow_default_branch in detail. The description adds meaning to the message default by explaining why it carries [dependabot skip], but it does not clarify the remaining parameters, so it sits at the baseline for a well-covered 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('pushes a commit that changes no file') plus the intent ('so CI starts a new run'). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like github_update_pr_branch, github_create_pr, or github_merge_pr, and an agent can select it 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?

Explains the trigger context clearly: use it to start a new CI run under the caller's name, with the Dependabot rebasing caveat that governs the message. It also routes the agent to github_get_skill('pr-management') for workflow and conventions. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it is not a full 5.

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