git_git_commit_all

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

Describes the operation as staging and committing, but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., no changes), behavior, or side effects beyond the obvious. No annotations to supplement.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Simple tool with output schema present; description covers core usage and context. Could mention prerequisites or error handling but sufficient for typical use.

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 has 1 parameter (message) with 0% description coverage. Description only says 'with a message,' adding no detail on format, constraints, or usage.

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?

Clearly states it stages all changes and commits with a message. Distinguishes from siblings like git_git_checkout_branch and git_git_rollback_to_commit by focusing on committing.

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?

Explicitly recommends using 'before making risky changes as a checkpoint.' Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but guideline is clear enough.

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