Commit managed worktree changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses important traits: staging and committing only non-sensitive changes, disabled hooks and GPG signing, and the absence of push. Some ambiguity remains about how 'non-sensitive' is determined or what happens when sensitive changes are present.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and packs the key constraints, disabled features, and limitation into a compact, readable structure.

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 covers the purpose, writable-worktree requirement, sensitive-change limitation, disabled hooks/signing, and the no-push constraint. The main gap is that 'non-sensitive' is not precisely defined, which could matter for a commit operation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'project' or 'message' parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter guidance.

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 verb and resource: 'Stage and commit only non-sensitive changes in a writable runner-managed mcp/* worktree.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easily distinguished from sibling inspect/branch/worktree tools.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions: only writable runner-managed mcp/* worktrees, only non-sensitive changes, and no push available. It does not name an alternative tool, but the boundaries of appropriate use are clear from the constraints.

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