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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful constraint that ALL pending changes are committed rather than a selected subset. It omits whether the commit is reversible, whether it pushes/deploys, or what the response reports.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. A brief note on reversibility or whether the commit publishes/deploys would round it out.

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%, and the schema already documents the optional message with its default and maxLength, plus project_id. The description adds nothing about the message default or the meaning of project ownership, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Commit') and resource ('every pending file change in a project'), so the operation and its bulk scope are unambiguous. It does not name the sibling it complements (projects_changes_discard) or contrast with it, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Call this after editing files' gives a clear precondition for when to invoke it. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives — e.g. that discarding instead uses projects_changes_discard — so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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