vault_commit

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it stages everything, creates one commit, returns commit SHA, clean-tree notice, or error, and mentions default commit message. Annotations confirm it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, which aligns with the described behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and return values. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers return values (commit SHA, clean-tree notice, error), batch usage context, and default message, providing complete guidance.

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 100% for the single parameter 'message', and the description adds extra meaning: empty defaults to 'vault: batch update' and notes it's the only parameter with no project argument, enhancing understanding 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?

Description clearly states 'Stage everything in the vault and create one commit' and explains its relationship to vault_write and vault_patch, distinguishing it from sibling tools by specifying it's a batch commit operation.

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?

Explicitly says this is a companion to vault_write and vault_patch with commit=False, providing when-to-use context. It also notes there is no project argument, clarifying scope. Missing explicit 'when not to use', but the context is sufficient.

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