writ_github_set_threshold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the check run fails when the ungated count exceeds N, and omitting the threshold restores neutral-only check runs. It omits permissions/auth requirements and whether the change is idempotent, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct value about threshold semantics and clearing the override. Slightly verbose line-broken phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation's effect thoroughly. The remaining gap is the installation_id parameter and any permission requirements, which are minor for a two-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the key parameter: it defines what a positive N, a zero, and None each mean. installation_id is left unexplained, but its name and required status make its role reasonably evident.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the per-installation check-run fail threshold.' That is concrete enough to separate it from siblings like writ_github_toggle_pr_comments or writ_github_installations, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It explains the value semantics well (positive N fails above N, zero-ungated passes, omit/None clears the override), which is effectively guidance on when to use which value. It does not say when to prefer this tool over a sibling or what prerequisites exist, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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