Github Create Tag

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral nuance by explaining that providing a message creates an annotated tag storing the message, while omitting it creates a lightweight ref. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is stated immediately, followed by the critical behavioral distinction, then a workflow reference. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward create operation, especially with an output schema present and annotations covering safety. However, it omits guidance on parameter semantics and does not clarify how this tool fits against release-related siblings, leaving some context gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the GitHub API.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It indirectly clarifies the 'message' parameter's side effect, but repo_owner, repo_name, tag_name, and sha are left without meaningful explanatory text beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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?

Description clearly states the operation: 'Creates a new tag' with the specific resource being a Git tag. It goes beyond the title by distinguishing annotated tags from lightweight refs, which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and separates it from related tools like github_delete_tag or github_create_release.

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 an implied usage context through the workflow pointer 'github_get_skill('release-management')', which suggests this tool participates in a release-management workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as github_create_release or github_list_tags, nor does it define exclusion criteria.

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