[EXPERIMENTAL] Stage + commit the current sandbox worktree. Surfaces as an AgentDrive artifact at commits/.json. Requires Cloudflare Containers; degrades to 503 otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Commit message | |
| author_name | No | Override git author name (default: agent identity) | |
| author_email | No | Override git author email (default: agent identity) | |
| workspace_id | Yes | Workspace whose sandbox to commit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the experimental status, the dependency on Cloudflare Containers, and the 503 failure mode. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like destructiveness or idempotency.
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 two focused sentences. The first covers purpose and artifact output, the second covers requirement and failure mode. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description explains the artifact path and failure condition. It covers the key aspects for using the tool, though it could mention if the commit is immediate or requires confirmation.
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 schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool stages and commits the current sandbox worktree, with a specific artifact output path. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like drive_sandbox_read or drive_write.
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 description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., drive_sandbox_clone or drive_write). The use case is implied but not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.
