commit_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states that a commit is created, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, branch existence requirements, or conflict behavior, leaving the mutation behavior underexplained.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a tight Args block. Every line contributes useful information, and there is no repetition of the schema structure or padded text.

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 output schema is present, so return value documentation is not necessary. However, for a commit-creating mutation with no annotations, the description lacks important preconditions and caveats (e.g., branch existence, whether the commit mutates the schema), making it only minimally adequate.

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?

Although schema coverage is reported as 0%, the description text actually includes an Args block that explains each parameter: project_uuid, schema_uuid, and branch_name with its default. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema titles and helps the agent understand parameter roles.

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 'Зафиксировать текущее состояние схемы коммитом в указанной ветке' – a clear verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly conveys the action and target, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'commit_to_branch' tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'commit_to_branch', nor any preconditions such as whether the branch must already exist. The only usage hint is the default branch name in the Args block, which is not sufficient.

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