Commit files to Lizard Git

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects an agent could not otherwise predict: a commit to a deployed branch starts a deploy, a commit to a branch with .lizard/workflows starts CI, and a conflicting expect produces a 409 listing the conflicting paths. It also explains the merge-on-move semantics and the idempotencyKey retry behavior, which is consistent with (not contradictory to) idempotentHint=false.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the core operation first and conditional behaviors after. The single packed paragraph makes the several distinct modes (createFrom, expect, idempotencyKey, deploy/CI triggers) harder to scan than a short clause list would be, but no sentence 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?

For a destructive, 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers conflict handling, retries, and downstream triggers thoroughly. The one gap is that it does not say what the call returns (commit sha, merged result, deploy/CI identifiers), which the agent must guess despite there being no output schema to consult.

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 only 14%, so the description has to carry the load and does: it defines the three file entry modes (new text content, delete: true, rename via moveFrom), explains createFrom as branch-creation-from-ref, and defines expect as 'the commit you based the change on'. Only branch and message are left implicit, and those are self-evident.

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 and resource ('Commit changes to a branch of a Lizard Git repository') and immediately scopes it with 'made on the server (no clone needed)', which separates it from git_checkout/git_status-style siblings. An agent can tell from the first clause exactly what operation this performs.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance: use it when you don't want a clone, pass idempotencyKey for safe retries, pass createFrom when the branch may not exist, and pass expect to get server-side merge instead of a failure. It does not, however, compare against alternatives like pr_create or sandbox_write_file for editing repository content, so routing between those paths is left to inference.

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