commit_setup_husky

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Configure' and does not mention side effects such as writing .husky files, modifying package.json, installing dependencies, or needing an api_key. The mutable nature of the operation is implied but not detailed.

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?

A single, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without filler. It is appropriately sized for a configuration tool.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a description that omits behavioral context (side effects, auth requirements, alternative routing). An agent has enough to know the high-level function but not enough to predict what the command will change or what inputs like api_key and lint_staged do semantically in the setup flow.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the structured data already documents them. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 has a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('Husky git hooks'), and it states the purpose ('commit message validation and pre-commit checks'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling git_setup_hooks, but the Husky focus and hook-specific phrasing make the tool's function clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_setup_hooks or commit_setup_conventional. The description is purely declarative and leaves the choice of tool entirely to the agent without context or exclusion criteria.

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