yuque_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 behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method and auto-detection behavior, but says nothing about required permissions, side effects, duplicate-name handling, idempotency, or what is returned after 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 very short and front-loads the core action before adding endpoint and documentation details. The trailing Chinese phrase '详见 references/api/repo_api.md' is a minor structural inconsistency but does not waste words.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It points to an external API reference but does not itself cover authorization requirements, side effects, failure modes, or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, and the input schema thoroughly documents each parameter (login, name, slug, public, description, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a repo') and clarifies that it auto-detects between user and group endpoints, which helps distinguish it from read/update/delete repo siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from copy_repo, which also creates a repository, so it falls short of the top score.

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 phrase 'Create a repo' implies the basic usage context, and 'auto-detects user vs group endpoint' tells the agent it does not need to choose an endpoint manually. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as copy_repo.

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