rebase_amend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the refusal condition, the dangerous silent-folding scenario at conflicted stops, and the stage_tracked semantics (tracked-only, no untracked files). This goes well beyond the input schema and is highly informative.

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 well-structured: main action first, then a critical refusal context, then a parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 description covers the core behavior, refusal reasons, and the most nuanced parameter. It lacks explicit setup for repo/message, but these are relatively self-evident from names and defaults. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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. It thoroughly explains stage_tracked, but repo and message are not discussed. The names and defaults offer some hints, but explicit explanation of what 'message' does (e.g., new commit message) and what 'repo' refers to would be needed for full compensation.

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 'Amend the commit this rebase has just applied,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rebase_skip, rebase_abort, or rebase_status. It also clarifies the exact scope of operation.

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 gives strong when-not guidance: 'Refused at every other kind of stop' and explains the conflicted-stop caveat. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use rebase_continue after resolving'), leaving the agent to infer alternatives from sibling names.

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