crosspad_commit

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by being explicit about mutation semantics. Adds valuable context beyond annotations: uses 0600 tempfiles avoiding shell-quoting issues, refuses on merge conflicts, never pushes, and preserves existing staged state when files omitted. Rich behavioral disclosure.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences. First sentence declares purpose and behavioral guarantees; second sentence handles the files[] conditional. Zero filler, every clause carries actionable information.

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?

Mutation tool with destructiveHint annotation, 100% schema coverage, and output schema present. Description covers safety guarantees (no push, merge-conflict refusal), tempfile mechanism, alias handling, and files[] semantics. No meaningful gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds significant semantics: explains alias resolution, clarifies staged-changes behavior vs auto-staging semantics for files[], and reassures message safety (newlines/quotes/backticks handled) with the 0600 tempfile mechanism. Confirms the tempfile approach that makes message parameter robust.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Commit staged changes in a specific CrossPad repo'. Clearly distinguishes from raw `git commit` by noting it handles repo aliases, refuses on merge conflicts, and never pushes. Distinct from sibling tools like crosspad_repo_status/diff.

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?

Explicit 'PREFER THIS over raw git commit' gives clear when-to-use guidance. States it refuses on merge conflicts, never pushes, and stages files[] if supplied — defining the exact behavioral contract. The repo parameter includes full alias mapping.

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