Commit staged changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the obvious 'commit' action: it uses the agent's own git identity, and it disclaims staging and pushing. This is useful for an agent deciding whether commit is the terminal step in a workflow, though it does not mention failure modes or return values.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and prerequisite are front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated compactly in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is committed, the prerequisite, identity behavior, and explicit non-behaviors. It does not describe success or error responses, but that is not needed to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both cwd and message. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema, such as the conventional commit message format. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-documented tool but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Commit'), names the precise resource ('already-staged files'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('with your own git identity'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like init and the note tools, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 establishes the prerequisite clearly: files must already be staged. It also explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT stage and does NOT push'), which prevents an agent from expecting a full commit-and-push flow. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for staging or pushing, but the context is still clear.

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