commit_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does not state that this is a write operation, whether files are overwritten, whether the commit is pushed directly, or what response/errors to expect. The sequencing hint is useful but not sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. 'Max 50 files' duplicates schema metadata, but it is a critical constraint worth reinforcing. The message is compact and scannable.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward commit operation given a fully documented schema. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves behavioral expectations unstated (e.g., what happens on success, whether the branch must already have a PR, and how partial failures are handled).

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a small semantic constraint ('commit message in English') and repeats the max-files rule from the schema, but does not add meaning beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Commit files to a branch.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_pull_request by explicitly saying it should be called after that tool, so an agent can tell this is the follow-up commit step.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call AFTER create_pull_request') and a hard limit ('Max 50 files'). It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the key usage constraint is clearly communicated.

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