commit_and_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses conflict-checking behavior and remote interaction, and it states the GitHub-only limitation. However, it does not explicitly confirm that a remote push occurs (though implied by 'commit_and_push' and conflict-checking) nor describe side effects on the local working copy.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action and parameters; the second adds critical conflict and support details. 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a key constraint (GitHub only) but omits return value details and prerequisites (e.g., having staged edits). It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'branch' and 'asNewBranch' but does not explain them thoroughly; the required 'message' parameter is only implied via 'single commit', not described. The description adds some context but is insufficient for all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ("Flush") and resource ("every staged edit") to indicate a commit and push action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like discard_pending_edits or list_pending_edits by describing a write operation that synchronizes with a remote.

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 implies usage through context (e.g., conflict-checking and retry guidance), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Currently supports GitHub only' provides a constraint, but no direct exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.

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