emacs_git_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says it creates a commit; it doesn't disclose that this mutates git history, that a commit may fail without staged changes, or what the returned output is.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is appropriately concise for a tool with two parameters.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin context. It omits the need for staged changes, the effect of 'amend', and possible failure modes, which an agent would need for robust 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 100%: both 'message' and 'amend' are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating that the commit uses a message, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a git commit') and the required input ('with a message'), which distinguishes it from the sibling staging/status/log tools. It doesn't explicitly call out when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus emacs_git_stage, emacs_git_status, or others, and no mention that changes should be staged first. The description leaves the agent to infer the prerequisite workflow from context.

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