Commit code project

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that all changes are staged including untracked files, that pre-commit hooks may auto-format files into the same commit, and that a real pre-commit failure aborts the commit. These are important behavioral details for a mutating commit tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then explains the key distinction and failure behavior. It is appropriately sized, though slightly verbose and includes RST-style references that do not add much for an agent.

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?

It covers the main staging, pre-commit, and failure semantics, which is useful for a mutating tool. However, with no output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage, it remains incomplete on parameter meaning and success behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only indirectly gestures at `run_precommit` by saying pre-commit is optional and does not explain `path`, `message`, or the default behavior of `run_precommit`.

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: stage all changes with `git add -A`, optionally run pre-commit, and commit. It also distinguishes this per-repo feature-code commit step from `commit_project` by noting that it stages untracked files and runs pre-commit hooks.

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?

It clearly positions the tool as the release-pipeline step that runs before version bumps and contrasts it with `commit_project`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against other commit siblings such as `commit_code_projects`.

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