commit_repository

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutating nature of the operation and the 'explicit confirmation' guardrail, which is useful. However, it does not explain whether the commit is pushed, what happens on failure, or other side effects.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and then add the key guardrail. No filler or repetition.

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 basic four-parameter Git commit, the description covers the essentials but omits the return format and any remote/push behavior. It also does not place the tool among its siblings, so an agent gets limited orientation beyond the action itself.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'paths' as 'selected files' and 'confirm' as 'explicit confirmation', but repositoryPath and message remain effectively undocumented. Their names make them inferable, which keeps this at a passing score.

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?

Description states 'Stage selected files and create a Git commit', giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly sets it apart from read-only siblings like repository_diff and repository_status and from higher-level create_pull_request/deploy_repository.

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 operation is self-evidently for committing local changes, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over create_pull_request or deploy_repository, and no exclusions are mentioned. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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