enable_git_hooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the effect (hooks firing on branch switch, pull, merge) but omits key traits: whether existing hooks are overwritten, required permissions, how to undo/disable, and what happens if the path is not a git repo. 'Install' implies a filesystem mutation that is never characterized.

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; the action is front-loaded and the second sentence explains the payoff without redundancy. Nothing is padded.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description should cover reversibility, overwrite behavior, and side effects on the target repository. None of that is present, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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%, so both parameters (path, hooks enum) are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention of 'branch switch, pull, merge' loosely maps to the post-checkout/post-merge hook options but adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema.

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 ('Install git hooks') plus the outcome ('automatic re-indexing on git operations'). It implicitly differentiates from the manual sibling reindex_changed_files by framing this as the automatic mechanism, but never names siblings explicitly.

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 context of use is implied ('Makes index stay in sync automatically'), so an agent can infer this is a one-time setup tool rather than a per-change tool. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative of manually calling reindex_changed_files.

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