Git commit

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: it stages ALL changes (not selective) and guarantees it never pushes, which goes beyond the annotation and clarifies side effects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Stage all changes and commit') followed by the key constraint. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the action, the writable-roots prerequisite, and the critical non-push guarantee. With an output schema present, return details are covered. Minor gaps like the exact staging scope (e.g., whether untracked files are included) are not critical for an agent to 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the parameter meanings, but it does not. It only says 'stage all changes and commit', leaving the 'path' and 'message' parameters unexplained beyond their self-evident names. The description fails to elaborate on what each parameter expects (e.g., path as repo directory, message as commit text).

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 specific verb 'Stage all changes and commit' with the resource 'a repository inside writable roots'. It distinguishes from sibling git tools like git_status or git_log by focusing on the commit action, and the explicit 'Never pushes' differentiates it from any push-related operation.

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 usage for committing changes, and the constraint 'inside writable roots' gives a prerequisite. The exclusion 'Never pushes' clarifies what it does not do, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance relative to other git tools like git_reset or git_revert.

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