Vault Commit

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses the no-op case ('clean-tree notice when there is nothing to commit'), the commit-wide scope, and the possible return states. It does not detail failure causes or permission requirements, but the behavior is well covered for a simple commit tool.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the companion context, and the third describes return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it instead of per-write commits, its whole-tree scope, and its return values. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%: the schema already explains the message default value and explicitly notes this is the only parameter, with no project argument. The main description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond referring to the commit message, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stage everything in the vault and create one commit.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by positioning it as the batched flush counterpart to vault_write(commit=False) and vault_patch(commit=False), and it states the output (commit SHA or clean-tree notice).

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?

It explicitly names the companion sibling tools and the exact condition for using this tool: callers that opt out of per-write commits should batch writes and then 'flush with a single vault_commit call.' The schema also reinforces scope by stating there is no project argument and the commit spans the whole vault working tree.

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