Create Git commit

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

The description discloses that the commit skips hooks, signing, filters, and pushing, which adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain what happens on success or failure, nor the meaning of 'authorized paths'. The description aligns with annotations (destructive=true) and adds some behavioral detail, but not enough to fully understand side effects or prerequisites.

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 primary action and key qualifiers. There is no redundant information or filler, and it is easy to parse at a glance.

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 destructive behavior and three required parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'authorized paths', the role of project and message, or what the output schema returns. The description leaves too much to inference, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema has three required parameters (paths, message, project) with zero descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they are used. The only hint is 'authorized paths', which ambiguously refers to the paths parameter but leaves project and message undefined. This is a critical 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 action (commit) and resource (paths), and adds specific qualifiers ('without hooks, signing, filters, or pushing') that differentiate it from a generic git commit. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like run_command, so the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies a use case by mentioning the conditions under which the commit is performed (no hooks, etc.), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_command or git_status. It lacks clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance.

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