git_commit

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates this is a destructive operation. The description adds only that write mode is required, which is a shallow addition. It does not clarify what happens during a commit (e.g., creating history, irreversible without force) beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no extraneous words. Every part is necessary and front-loaded.

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 simple commit tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior (committing paths) and a key prerequisite (write mode). Slightly more detail about the commit flow could be added, but it is largely adequate.

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 carries the burden. The description mentions 'paths' but does not explain the message or optional repo_path parameters. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema property names.

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 commits files ('Commit explicit paths only'), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling git tools like git_apply_patch or git_create_branch by focusing on committing specific paths.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires local git write mode') but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_apply_patch. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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