Commit file changes to GitHub

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: commits are atomic, edits apply in order against the branch's current content and require an exact single match unless all=true, the file must exist and be text, and dryRun validates matches and reports sizes/changed-line counts without committing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and otherwise dense with no filler; two sentences carry a lot of required detail. The sentences run long, but every clause earns its place by describing a distinct per-file mode or flag.

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 destructive, multi-mode mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the mode selection rules, atomicity, exact-match semantics, branching behavior, and dry-run validation an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: encoding=base64 is for binary files, edits is find/replace with single-match requirement, createBranch seeds from the default branch, and dryRun previews per-file action, sizes, and changed-line counts. It leaves a few details (e.g., maxItems limits, required path) to 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 ('atomic commit that adds, updates, edits or deletes several files on a branch') and names the underlying mechanism (Git Data API) plus the downstream effect (CI/CD deploys). This distinguishes it from siblings like github_get_file, github_commit_image, and github_commit_attachment.

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?

Gives explicit per-mode routing: 'per file give exactly one of content ... edits ... or delete', and clarifies edits is 'right for large files such as a 300 KB content bundle'. It also explains createBranch and dryRun usage. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over the specialized siblings (image/attachment committers).

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