git_commit_verified

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it verifies, stages only the requested paths, creates a local commit, and refuses pre-existing staged changes. It does not detail what verification commands run or cleanup behavior, but the guardrail disclosure exceeds what annotations provide.

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, both information-dense, with the key scope constraint and refusal guardrail front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 destructive six-parameter tool, the description covers the core workflow and the most important guardrail, and the high schema coverage covers parameter details. It could be more complete by describing what happens after verification or on failure, but it is sufficient for deciding to call the tool.

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%, so the baseline for this dimension is satisfied. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; 'explicit paths' and 'local commit' are behavioral clarifications rather than new parameter semantics.

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 opens with three specific actions — verify, stage explicit paths, and create a local commit — and the final clause 'Refuses pre-existing staged changes' distinguishes it from plain git_commit. This lets an agent understand exactly what the tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 description gives clear use context: commit only explicitly listed paths and only when there are no pre-existing staged changes, which also acts as a when-not condition. It does not name alternative tools like git_commit or git_add or state when verification is unnecessary, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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