publish_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the full sequence: 'Initializes a git repository if needed, commits all files, creates the remote repository on GitHub and pushes the default branch.' It also explains the defaults for parameters (e.g., repo_name defaults to folder name, branch defaults to 'main'), giving good insight into side effects. It does not mention error scenarios or authentication prerequisites, but core behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a compact step description, and then a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is well-organized and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multi-step process) and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers parameter semantics, the operational sequence, and defaults. The absence of annotations is offset by the thorough description, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke the 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 0%, so the description must fully explain all parameters. It does so explicitly: 'path: absolute path to the local project directory,' 'repo_name: GitHub repository name (defaults to the folder name),' 'private: whether the repository is private,' etc. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides titles and defaults.

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 a specific action: 'Publish a local project as a new GitHub repository.' It enumerates the concrete steps (init, commit, create remote, push), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_repository' (which likely only creates an empty repo) and 'publish_current_project' (which likely operates on the current directory rather than an arbitrary path).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when publishing a local project as a new GitHub repo. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the detailed behavior (initializing git, committing all files) implies it is for turning an existing local project into a new remote repository, which is sufficient guidance.

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