create_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the semantic content of a Repo entity but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether creating requires certain permissions, whether duplicates by slug are rejected, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on name conflicts. The aliases 'globally unique' constraint is mentioned in the schema, not the description. This is a mutating create operation with no behavioral disclosure beyond the entity meaning.

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 well-structured: one sentence states the core action, followed by a clarifying paragraph on Repo semantics and the parent-component relationship with a concrete example. It's efficient with no filler, though it could arguably be tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description covers the entity semantics well. The main gap is the lack of behavioral disclosure for a mutating operation (no annotations), but the schema and output schema provide substantial structure, and the conceptual richness compensates.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds conceptual context about 'slug', 'component' (parent relationship with example), and what a Repo holds, which helps interpret the 'description' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't detail format constraints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 new Repo entity and elaborates on what Repos hold (facts about codebase: style, testing, layout, etc.). The parent-component relationship is explained with a concrete example. It's specific enough, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_task or create_governance, though the entity type ('Repo') naturally differentiates.

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 explains what a Repo is and its optional parent-component relationship, which gives useful conceptual context. However, it doesn't state when to use this vs alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There's no explicit 'use for X, not for Y' guidance.

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