Commit project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it mutates but is not classified as destructive. The description adds useful context by naming the underlying command and clarifying that only staged changes are committed, but says nothing about auth requirements, behavior when nothing is staged, or failure modes.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action and includes the literal command form, with no wasted words. Slightly more context could have been added without bloat, but the sizing is appropriate.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the staged-changes precondition, and annotations carry the safety profile. It falls short on path semantics and on what the agent should expect on success or failure, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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 carry the parameter burden. It partially covers 'message' by embedding it in the example command, but 'path' - the parameter that selects which project to commit - is never explained, leaving the most important selector undocumented.

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 (commit) and resource (staged changes) and scopes it to 'a single Git project', which distinguishes it from the plural siblings like commit_projects and commit_code_projects. It does not, however, differentiate itself from repository_manager_commit_code_project, which is also singular.

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 'for a single Git project' phrasing implies usage in the single-project case versus the plural variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of the closely related commit_code_project alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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