Stage all task worktree changes and create a local Git commit without push, merge, or deploy. Provide task ID and commit message to record isolated work.
Stage all Task worktree changes and create a real local Git commit without push, merge, or deploy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-dev.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already flags mutation, and the description adds useful context: it stages all Task worktree changes and creates a real local commit without push, merge, or deploy. It does not go further to describe side effects, reversibility, or history impact, but the annotation lowers the burden.
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?
One sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the exclusions (push, merge, deploy) are appended efficiently without redundant detail.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter shape and existing destructive annotation, the description covers the essential operation and its boundaries. It does not explain what counts as 'Task worktree changes', but for the tool's complexity this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.
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%, and the description does not explain the task_id or message parameters. The names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer that message is the commit message and task_id identifies the task.
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') and identifies the exact resource and scope ('all Task worktree changes'), and explicitly excludes push, merge, and deploy. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like git.diff.
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 when to use this tool: to snapshot all current Task worktree changes as a local commit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using git.diff to inspect changes first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.