commit_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that an owner confirmation phrase is required and that secret-like files are never staged, which are meaningful safety behaviors. It does not disclose what happens if there are no changes to commit, whether the operation is atomic, or what the response looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key requirement and safety constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage, the description covers the main action and two important safety/authorization details. It remains incomplete regarding return values, failure modes, and precise parameter semantics, which leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 for the two undocumented parameters. It hints that confirmationPhrase is required, but does not explain the format, origin, or validation rules for that phrase, and it does not explicitly explain that 'message' is the commit message or its constraints.

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 a specific verb and resource: staging local changes and creating a local Git commit. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling commit_and_push by emphasizing 'local' commit, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.

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?

It provides some context by noting the owner confirmation phrase requirement and that secret-like files are never staged, which helps an agent know when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose commit_changes versus commit_and_push or push_branch, leaving that inference to the agent.

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