Commit multiple files

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond stating that it creates a commit, such as whether it checks out branches, how conflicts are handled, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core function and supported operations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested actions array, 5 parameters, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits usage scenarios, branch-related behavior, and return details, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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?

The schema covers about 60% of parameters with descriptions (project_id, start_branch, actions), but branch and commit_message lack descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level guidance, e.g., how to format content or the actions array, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool creates a single commit affecting multiple files, and lists the supported file operations (create/update/delete/move). The phrase 'several files at once' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_or_update_file which handle individual files, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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 tool is for batch file operations within one commit, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_create_or_update_file for single-file changes) or provide exclusion criteria. The intended use case is inferred from 'several files at once', which is implied usage.

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