Atomic commit

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It helpfully discloses the side effects (contract validation, automatic task finishing, Git Note attachment) and the atomic framing, but omits failure/rollback semantics, permissions/auth needs, and how 'automatic task finishing' interacts with the finishTask boolean — a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble; every clause names a real behavior. It is dense but not padded.

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?

Covers the creation behavior well, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say what the tool returns (e.g., commit SHA) and what happens when contract validation fails. For an atomic commit tool, those are material omissions.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with examples. The description adds context about trailers and validation but no parameter-specific detail beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('create a Git commit') and enumerates the bundled effects (trailers, validation, task finishing, note attachment). The 'single operation' framing implicitly differentiates it from the granular siblings like lognexus_note_attach and lognexus_state_finish_task, though it never names them outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'in a single operation' hints this replaces chaining note_attach + state_finish_task, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent must infer the routing decision from the bundled-effect list.

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