Create commit

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

Annotations already declare the key safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive). The description adds only generic return/error context: a response wrapper with a Commit model and ParameterError for invalid parameters. It does not explain the effects of committing, branch behavior, force semantics, or authentication requirements.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, but the following Args/Returns/Raises block is boilerplate. The kwargs line does not earn its place and is especially inadequate for a tool with 40 specific parameters.

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 40-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage, the description is far too thin. It mentions the return wrapper and error type but omits nearly all information needed to invoke the tool correctly, such as actions, branch, force, and path semantics.

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?

The schema has 40 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no meaningful parameter semantics. Its only parameter text is "**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request," which is both unhelpful and misleading given the enumerated schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new commit." This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like gitlab_get_commit and from related mutations like gitlab_cherry_pick_commit or gitlab_revert_commit, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_create_branch, gitlab_create_tag, or gitlab_create_commit_comment. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions are provided.

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