git_stage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by noting that staging covers 'additions, modifications, and deletions' — i.e., staging a deleted path records the removal — but says nothing about index state being overwritten, failure modes, or repository 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key constraint ('explicit literal paths') leads. It is perhaps too terse for a destructive staging operation, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

The tool is a destructive index mutation with one undocumented parameter and an output schema (so return values need not be explained). Missing are the interaction with git_unstage/git_restore and any statement of prerequisites or partial-failure behavior, which leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the schema only supplies a name and array-of-string type. The description compensates partially by specifying 'explicit literal paths,' implying no glob expansion and no directory recursion, but it never says whether multiple paths are staged in one transactional operation or what happens if a path doesn't exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Stage') and resource ('paths'), and qualifies the input as 'explicit literal paths, including additions, modifications, and deletions,' which lets an agent distinguish it from broader commit/restore tools. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g., git_unstage, git_restore) to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite siblings like git_unstage, git_restore, and git_commit being obvious candidates for confusion. The only usage signal is the implicit 'literal paths' constraint, which is a parameter rule rather than a selection rule.

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