github_git_create_commit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., creating a commit in the repository), or any required authentication or rate limits.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient. However, it lacks substantive information, making it underinformative. A good balance would include more context without being verbose.

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?

Creating a commit requires specifying a tree, parent commits, message, etc. The description does not hint at these requirements, and the input schema's 'body' parameter is underdefined. No output schema is provided. The description is completely inadequate for the complexity of the 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 100% (all parameters have basic descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is minimal. Baseline 3 applies, but no extra value is added.

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 'Create a commit' clearly states the action and resource (creating a Git commit), but lacks specific details that would distinguish it from sibling git creation tools like create_blob or create_tag. The name itself adds clarity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_git_create_tree or github_git_create_tag. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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