git_commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates repository state. The description usefully adds the default staging behavior ('all changes by default'), but says nothing about failure modes, empty-commit handling, or what happens to unstaged/untracked files.

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?

One tight sentence with the staging behavior front-loaded before the commit action. Nothing wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the mutation's risk profile.

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 3-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering commit semantics, the description covers the core operation but omits commit-failure behavior, partial-staging implications, and the interaction with the required message parameter.

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 67%: path and files are documented in the schema, message is not (though it is self-evident and required). The description adds the meaningful default for the files parameter ('all changes by default'), which reinforces rather than merely repeats 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 compound verb+resource: stage files and create a commit, with the default staging scope ('all changes by default') made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like git_status, git_diff, and git_log, though it never names them.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. It doesn't say a commit requires staged changes, that a message is mandatory, or how it relates to git_diff/git_status as the recommended pre-step.

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