Commit Code

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds only the bulk scope and a prohibition on host commands, saying nothing about what state is created or lost, whether a commit message is mandatory, how pre-commit hooks affect the outcome (run_precommit defaults true), or how failures across multiple repositories are handled.

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 with the operation name and immediately followed by the scope constraint. No padding or repetition, though the second clause is more of a namespace-level policy statement than tool-specific guidance.

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?

This is an 11-parameter, multi-repo mutation tool with no required parameters and no output-schema-excused gaps in behavior. The description never explains the bulk commit flow, the relationship to background jobs (job_id), or which parameters govern a commit call, leaving an agent to reverse-engineer intent from the schema alone.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the schema carries full parameter documentation. The description adds nothing about parameters, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema, but it does not help disambiguate the many parameters that appear redundant for a commit operation (path, projects, message, 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?

"Commit code (rm_git)" essentially restates the tool name rm_git_commit_code and the title "Commit Code." The only additive signal is "typed bulk Git operations," which hints at multi-repo scope but does not say what the tool commits, against what, or how it differs from siblings like rm_git_commit or repository_manager_commit_code_project.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The statement that "arbitrary host commands are prohibited" implies raw command execution belongs elsewhere (i.e., rm_git_raw), but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing this tool over rm_git_commit, rm_git_pre_commit, or the repository_manager_commit_* variants is stated. The schema even references action values ('commit', 'commit_code', 'status', 'cancel') that the description never routes the agent through.

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