Preview and create a Git commit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'This tool modifies Git state' and the review-before-commit rule. It adds genuinely new behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey: the preview diff is bounded, and the commit stages ALL non-ignored changes (i.e., scope is broader than one file). It stops short of covering failure modes such as nothing-to-commit or whether a remote push happens.

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 call-first instruction and the safety gate last. The mode check is embedded in the same clause as its effect, so nothing is wasted or buried.

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 2-param, 0-required mutation tool with a full output schema, the description covers the decision the agent actually faces: preview vs commit, how to build the message, and what the commit will sweep in. Return-value format is correctly left to the output schema.

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% and the schema property descriptions already explain omitting commitMessage for a preview, the single-line Conventional Commit form, and the repositoryPath default. The description restates the mode semantics rather than adding new parameter meaning (no format examples, no note that Conventional Commit subjects can exceed the 100-char cap). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (preview/inspect and create a Git commit) and makes the two operating modes explicit: preview when commitMessage is omitted, commit when it is supplied. An agent can tell exactly what the call will do without opening the schema, and the sibling tools (docker, logs, json) are clearly unrelated.

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 an explicit ordered workflow — call first without commitMessage, generate a Conventional Commit message from the changes, call again with commitMessage — plus a gating rule ('only commit after reviewing the preview'). This is exactly the when/what-order guidance an agent needs for a two-phase mutation.

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