Scoped Git commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/mutation nature is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses a refusal condition (unrelated changes staged) and a verification step (verifies the staged set before commit). These are useful safety-relevant traits an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety constraint. No filler; each sentence earns its place, though the second sentence could be marginally sharper.

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 mutation with annotations but no output schema, the behavioral coverage (refusal + verification) is decent, so return values need not be explained. However, with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves several parameters (cwd, deviceId, deviceName, allowEmpty) entirely unintroduced, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implicitly covers 'paths' ('explicit files/directories') and 'message'; it says nothing about cwd, deviceId, deviceName, or allowEmpty, and adds no format/semantic detail for paths or message beyond the schema. Substantial compensation gap.

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 pair ('Stage and commit') with a clear scope modifier ('only explicit files/directories'), distinguishing it from a general git commit. Combined with the title 'Scoped Git commit', an agent immediately understands this is a constrained commit operation, and the only git sibling (git_summary) is a read/report tool, so there is no confusion.

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 when to use it (scoped commits rather than blanket commits) and gives a precondition – it refuses when unrelated changes are already staged. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly states when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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