Commit selected project changes

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool performs concurrency validation, whitespace checks, and sensitive-content scanning. However, it does not explain what happens if these checks fail, the consequences of the commit, or the role of the expectedStatusSha256 parameter in the concurrency mechanism. The description is partially transparent but lacks depth for this complex operation.

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, well-constructed sentence that immediately conveys the core action and its constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary verb ('Stage and commit') and scope ('only explicit relative paths'), followed by the key validation steps. There is no redundant or superfluous language, making it highly concise and effective.

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 concurrency checks and four required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to compute the expectedStatusSha256, the semantics of paths relative to the project root, or the expected output/behavior after a successful commit. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 zero description coverage for its four required parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. While the description mentions 'explicit relative paths' which loosely maps to the `paths` parameter, there is no clarification of the expected format, the meaning of `expectedStatusSha256`, or how `projectId` and `message` should be used. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is a significant gap.

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 stages and commits only explicit relative paths after performing several checks. It identifies the specific action (stage and commit), the resource (project changes), and the scope (explicit relative paths), which is specific and unambiguous. It also subtly differentiates from a generic commit by emphasizing the selective path requirement.

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 like git_push, git_unstage, or git_status. Although it mentions 'after status review,' it does not explicitly state the conditions for invoking this tool or when to avoid it. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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