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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the commit becomes a restorable/revertible entry in session and version history, direct MCP edits are the intended source, and execution is gated on confirm=true after user agreement.

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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE ACTION classification and the core commit/push definition, then tight sections for usage cases and the confirmation gate. Slightly verbose with caps and parentheticals, but every sentence carries operational value.

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 no explanation. Given the mutation semantics and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the write classification, the auto_commit grouping workflow, the retry case, and the mandatory confirmation gate.

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 already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining the gating semantics of confirm ('call only with confirm=true after they agree') and the grouping intent behind auto_commit=false, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 compound verb+resource (commit ALL pending changes and push to the private GitHub repo) and frames it as a WRITE ACTION. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dreamagent_write_file and dreamagent_edit_file, which mutate files rather than finalize a version.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it: (a) grouping several MCP writes/deletes into one version via auto_commit=false, or (b) retrying a failed commit. It also states the exclusion — chat-driven edits commit automatically — so the agent knows when NOT to reach for this tool.

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