vault_commit

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

Annotations provide basic safety hints (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds transparency by detailing return values: 'Returns the new commit SHA on success, a clean-tree notice when there is nothing to commit, or a human-readable error.' This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise (three short paragraphs) and well-structured: purpose first, usage second, return values third. Every sentence adds value without 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 optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage pattern, and return behavior completely. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage (one parameter 'message' with description and default). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 tool's action: 'Stage everything in the vault and create one commit.' It directly distinguishes itself from siblings vault_write and vault_patch by specifying it is a companion for batch commits when those tools are called with commit=False.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'callers that opt out of per-write commits batch many writes and then flush with a single vault_commit call.' This provides clear context for usage and alternatives.

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