commit_to_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or what 'detached' commit means, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 crisp summary followed by a clean parameter list. Every line is useful and scannable, with no redundant information.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, and clarity on the detached-commit flow. It leaves the agent uninformed about branch selection rules and relationship to sibling commit_schema, making the tool's overall context incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides Russian one-line explanations for each parameter, adding some meaning beyond the bare titles. However, it does not clarify concepts like 'detached_target_branch_name' or constraints on branch_name, so compensation is only partial.

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 'Зафиксировать изменения схемы коммитом в ветке' (commit schema changes in the branch), clearly identifying the verb, resource, and context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'commit_schema', leaving ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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. It only lists arguments without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where commit_schema or other branch tools would be preferable.

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