create_governance

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the cascade/dedup behavior and that scaffolded subtopics (overview, rules) are auto-created, which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows. A minor gap: it doesn't disclose whether creating a governance entity is destructive or idempotent, though the 'Create a new' phrasing implies safe creation.

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 well-structured: a short definition sentence, then supporting context about usage and cascade, then a one-line note on scaffolding. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of 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 thorough for a creation tool: it covers purpose, examples, referral mechanisms, cascade behavior, and scaffolding defaults. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. It could be more complete if it explained parameter semantics (especially aliases and description), but for a create tool with a clear purpose and rich behavioral context, it is substantially complete.

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 compensate. It explains the 'slug' concept implicitly (as the identifier for referencing governance via frontmatter) and the scaffolded subtopics, but it does not explain what 'description' or 'aliases' mean or how they're used. The description mentions aliases implicitly by noting governance can be referenced multiple ways, but doesn't clarify the aliases parameter's purpose or format.

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 tool creates a 'Governance entity' and defines it as 'a reusable guideline' holding cross-cutting rules. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_repo and create_task by naming the specific entity type and enumerating concrete examples (security policies, API design standards, branding guidelines).

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 explicitly explains how governance entities are referenced ('via governance: [...] in frontmatter or via add_governance') and describes the cascade behavior during task pack assembly, including deduplication. This tells the agent when creation matters and how it interacts with other entities, though it doesn't name an exclusion condition — the reference and cascade mechanics serve as strong usage context.

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