gitlab_commit_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a commit, which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., whether it pushes the commit immediately). The description is too brief to adequately inform an AI agent about the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action. However, it is so brief that it may sacrifice clarity on usage context. Still, there is no fluff, and it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 has 5 parameters including nested objects and an output schema, the description is minimal. It provides no context beyond the basic action, such as when to use multiple actions, error scenarios, or integration with workflows. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values, but additional context is needed for completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed semantics for each parameter (e.g., project_id includes runtime config instructions). The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 one commit with multiple file actions via the GitLab commits API. It specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'one commit with multiple file actions', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_branch or gitlab_get_file that do not perform commits.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), or compare to potential alternatives like creating separate commits. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.

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