ue5_commit_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses a mutating write to disk, automatic directory creation, an optional hot reload compile, and an environment-gating requirement. It does not cover overwrite behavior or error cases, but the core behavioral profile is clearly stated.

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 cover the main action, side effects, optional behavior, and a prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines what is committed, the optional compile trigger, and the required configuration. The main missing context is an explicit link to the staging prerequisite via ue5_stage_files, but this is reasonably inferable from 'staged files.'

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 both parameters. The description adds 'if omitted, commits all staged files' and default false for compile, but these largely mirror the schema rather than introduce new meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb+resource: 'Write all staged files (or a subset) to disk.' It also clarifies behavior (directories created, optional hot reload) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like ue5_stage_files and ue5_preview_staged by emphasizing the actual disk write.

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 implies the expected workflow (operating on staged files) and gives a hard prerequisite (UE5_ALLOW_FILE_WRITE=true). However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives or names sibling tools such as ue5_stage_files, leaving some inference to the agent.

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