repository_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key non-obvious behaviors: it validates first, commits only changed DSL-controlled paths, and does not push. This goes beyond what the schema could convey. It does not mention permissions or rollback, but the core mutation traits are transparent.

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?

The description is a single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the verb and key constraints. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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?

The tool is a moderately complex mutation with 3 parameters and no annotations. The description conveys the core operation and its scoping, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it leaves out when to use this step relative to repository_diff/status/validate, and does not clarify the role of declaration_path or any repository initialization prerequisite.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention repository_path, message, or declaration_path at all; the only hint is 'DSL-controlled paths' which vaguely relates to declaration_path. An agent gets no added meaning beyond parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('commit') on a specific resource (DSL-controlled paths in a repository) with clear scope qualifiers ('only changed', 'without push'). This distinguishes it from siblings like repository_validate (validation only) and repository_publish (which likely pushes).

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 phrase 'without push' implies when not to use this tool (when push is desired), and 'Validate and commit' suggests it is for a local commit workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like repository_publish or say 'use repository_validate if you only want validation', so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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