Add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds only a family-wide prohibition on arbitrary host commands and says nothing about which files/state are affected, required permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the first token is tautological filler and the second sentence is boilerplate about the whole rm_git family rather than earning its place for this specific operation.

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 an 11-parameter, non-read-only bulk Git mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify scope and target selection. It leaves the actual operation and its effect on repository state entirely unexplained.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no param-level detail (e.g., how projects or path interact with add), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Add (rm_git)" restates the name and title without explaining the operation (presumably staging files, per git add). The only other sentence describes the rm_git family, not this tool, and does not differentiate it from siblings like rm_git_commit or rm_git_phased_push.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. "Arbitrary host commands are prohibited" is a constraint that hints at rm_git_raw's existence but never states when to choose add versus commit/push.

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