create_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether the commit stages files, what happens when 'files' is omitted (all changes vs. already-staged), whether it pushes, or what authorization/remote state is required for a mutation that alters repository history.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and is free of padding. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for the mutation it performs.

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 history-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: staging behavior, the effect of the optional files array, and any post-commit side effects. An agent could call it but would be guessing at several behaviors.

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%, with all three parameters documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the conventional-commit expectation already stated in the message parameter's schema description and adds no new semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a ... git commit') plus the expected message format, which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like git_status and git_diff. It stops short of differentiating itself from adjacent write tools such as create_branch or create_pull_request.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to commit versus when to use create_branch or create_pull_request, nor any prerequisites (working tree state, staged changes, branch context). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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