commit_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('commits') and hints at upsert semantics ('creations or updates'), but says nothing about authentication needs, whether files are overwritten or merged, whether an existing commit is amended, or what happens on branch conflicts.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the trickiest parameter's format. The example earns its place, though the description could still be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the hard-to-guess parameter but leaves the mutation's behavioral profile (auth, overwrite semantics, failure modes) unaddressed, making it only minimally viable.

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% across five required parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does add real value by specifying the exact dict shape and an example for files_to_change, but owner, repo, branch, and message remain undocumented beyond their self-evident names.

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?

States a specific verb (commits) and resource (file creations or updates to a Gitea repository), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_branch or create_pull_request. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus create_branch, create_pull_request, or any alternative. No prerequisites (auth, branch existence) or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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