git_amend_message

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it rewrites local history, affects only the message, excludes staged and working-tree changes, and does not contact a remote. This is strong supplementary context beyond the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and scope. Every clause adds useful information: what is rewritten, what is excluded, that history is rewritten locally, and that no remote is contacted.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts needed to invoke it correctly: the scope, the exclusion of staged and working-tree changes, and the local-only behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note that the commit's hash will change as a result of rewriting history.

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?

The schema documents repo_path and its default, but the required message parameter has no schema description. The tool description clarifies that the message is the rewritten commit message, which adds some meaning, but it does not fully compensate for the schema's omission of message semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: rewriting only the most recent local commit message. It also explicitly excludes staged and working-tree changes, which sharply distinguishes it from related commit tools like git_commit.

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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool: to change only the latest local commit message without including other changes. It also states the operation does not contact a remote, giving useful context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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