Commit file changes to GitHub

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by mentioning 'adds/updates/deletes' and 'atomically'. It adds useful context about the branch update triggering CI/CD and the requirement to provide full file content. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, then provides practical usage instructions in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description is complete for a mutation tool: it covers the workflow (read, modify, commit), mentions atomicity, CI/CD implications, and branching options. It lacks explicit error handling or return format details, but since there is no output schema and annotations provide safety hints, this is adequate.

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 80%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the content parameter should hold full new file content and that createBranch creates from the default branch. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already covers, so 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 a specific action: creating one commit that adds/updates/deletes files atomically via the Git Data API, with the downstream effect on CI/CD deployment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_get_file (read) and github_list_commits (list) by naming the commit creation and file changes.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: read files first with github_get_file, send full new content, and use createBranch for new branches. It implies when to use this tool (for commit changes) versus when to use the read tool, though it doesn't explicitly state 'do not use this for reading' – but the guidance is clear enough.

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