commit_files

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'without force-pushing' signals a safety guarantee, and 'File contents are not audited' flags an important limitation. Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with (atomic commit implies mutation). No contradiction found.

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 tightly written sentences conveying purpose, scope, safety constraints, and limitations. Zero wasted words, appropriately front-loaded with the action verb first.

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?

The tool has 7 params with no output schema, and the description covers the key behavioral aspects (atomicity, no force-push, no content audit). It's reasonably complete for a commit operation given the destructive annotation and safety-relevant constraints, though param semantics could be richer.

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 29%, so the description carries some burden. The description explains the overall operation (commit with multiple files) but doesn't document individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. The expectedHeadSha's optimistic concurrency purpose is in the schema, and the description doesn't add param-level detail, leaving a moderate 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates an atomic commit with multiple file creates/updates/deletes and advances a feature branch without force-pushing. The verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes this from siblings like get_repository_file or create_branch, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 (bulk file operations in a single atomic commit) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. The hint that file contents are not audited provides some boundary context but no explicit exclusions are given.

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