GitHub MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: that this is irreversible, requires appropriate permissions, creates a commit (implied by the message parameter but not stated), or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information. This is an example of efficient communication, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the commit behavior, permission requirements, error conditions, or relationship to other tools. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to provide crucial operational context for a high-risk operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from a repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_branch, delete_label, or delete_webhook, which all delete different resources in the same repository context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the file's SHA from get_file_contents, which is only hinted in the schema), when deletion is appropriate versus modification, or how this differs from other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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