repopilot_publish_proof_comment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it says the call both creates and updates a marked comment, and it explicitly spells out the idempotency effect ('Repeating the call updates the same marked comment instead of posting duplicates'). It also mentions verification of the evidence chain and redaction, which are not in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action (build, verify, create/update) and then add the critical usage constraint. No filler. Every word contributes to either purpose or condition.

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 no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the operation, the evidence chain, the idempotency behavior, and the usage restriction. It omits details like required permissions or the exact format of the comment, but those are not essential for invocation given the high schema coverage and annotations. A small gap is the lack of guidance on what to do if the PR wasn't created by this run, though the usage condition implies rejection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema alone describes all three parameters. The description adds relational context by tying pullNumber to the run's create_pull_request evidence, clarifying that the caller must pass the PR created by that run. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Pull request created by this run and recorded in its git_reference evidence.'

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Build a redacted Proof Bundle... and create or update the run-scoped managed GitHub PR comment.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like repopilot_publish_review_comment and github_create_pull_request by specifically targeting the run-scoped proof comment, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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 explicit condition: 'Use only for the PR recorded in that run's create_pull_request evidence.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and implies it should not be used for other PRs. It also notes the idempotent behavior (updates instead of duplicates), but does not name alternative tools as directly as the highest calibration example.

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