Commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-vs-safe profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint ('arbitrary host commands are prohibited'), confirming a sandboxed/typed command surface, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or per-action effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted. However, for an 11-parameter, multi-action tool this level of terseness is under-specification rather than efficient concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description never discloses that this single tool multiplexes several actions (commit, commit_code, raw, status, cancel, phased_push) that the parameters switch between. With zero required parameters and 11 optional ones, that missing action model leaves an agent unable to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter including the action-specific ones (message, job_id, command, phase) is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 by restating the name/title ('Commit (rm_git)') and then describes the tool only as 'typed bulk Git operations', which is tautological against its own name. It never states what commit actually does or that the schema exposes a multi-action surface (raw, status, cancel, phased_push), so an agent cannot distinguish it from rm_git_raw or rm_git_commit_code.

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 such as rm_git_commit_code or rm_git_raw. The only quasi-guidance is the exclusion of 'arbitrary host commands', which hints at the raw-action boundary but is not framed as selection criteria.

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