git-stash

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that stashing removes changes from the working directory and index, or that stashes are stored in a stack. The effect on the file system is not mentioned, which is critical for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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?

At three words, the description is very concise but arguably under-specified. While conciseness is valued, the sentence is too short to convey necessary details. It is front-loaded but lacks structural elements like examples or conditions.

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 is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome (changes are saved and reverted), nor does it mention that the operation is reversible via git-stash-pop. For a tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (message and directory). The description adds no additional context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 'Stashes current changes' is a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like git-stash-pop, which applies stashes, and git-add, which stages changes. An agent familiar with git would understand that stashing temporarily saves uncommitted changes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, there is no mention that stashing is appropriate when needing to switch branches without committing, or that git-commit can be used instead. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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