git_commit_amend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains the two execution paths: using 'git commit --amend' if HEAD, otherwise 'git commit --fixup'. This adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond the tool name. It does not mention side effects like rewriting commit history or needing to rebase fixup commits later, but the core conditional behavior is well disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately explain the conditional behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the two scenarios and the target commit. It could optionally mention the risks of amending pushed commits, but for a tool intended to amend the last git_commit, this is a minor omission. Overall, it is complete enough for correct usage.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'files' with a description ('List of file paths to add to the commit'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, leaving the schema to carry the semantic weight. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Amend files to the last commit created by git_commit.' It names the specific verb (amend) and resource (files to a commit), and the conditional behavior (HEAD vs fixup) further clarifies the scope. It naturally distinguishes from the sibling git_commit by focusing on modifying an existing commit rather than creating a new one.

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 provides clear context on how the tool behaves in different situations (HEAD vs not HEAD), which guides when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of git_commit when you want to amend the last commit' or list exclusions. The sibling tool name gives a strong hint, but explicit guidance would be stronger.

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