create_commit_status

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

The description indicates a mutative operation ('Create or update'), which is not contradicted by annotations (openWorldHint). However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions beyond what the schema implies.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently, with no redundant words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage hints without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 10 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or typical usage patterns, leaving 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning or context for any parameter beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('Create or update') and the resource ('status of a commit'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinct from siblings like list_commit_statuses or get_commit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_commit_statuses or other mutation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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