Create repository commit

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the commit is atomic, non-destructive, and last_commit_id guards against concurrent overwrites. It goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance—scope of operations, concurrency protection, and branch/sha constraints—without repetition or filler.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters and a nested actions array, the description plus detailed schema provides near-sufficient context. It explains the non-destructive scope and critical constraints, though it could further clarify when to use this vs create_destructive_commit and mention side effects like branch creation or pipeline triggers.

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 description coverage is low at 25%, and the description compensates only for a few key parameters: last_commit_id, start_branch, and start_sha. Parameters like branch, commit_message, and author fields are left to schema structure without added semantic guidance. This is partial compensation, not full.

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's purpose: creating one GitLab commit with non-destructive atomic create, update, move, or chmod actions. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes this from destructive commit creation by labeling the operations non-destructive.

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 clear operational context: when to use per-file last_commit_id, and how to handle start_branch vs start_sha. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_destructive_commit, but the non-destructive qualifier and constraint guidance make the intended usage clear.

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