bb_create_commit_files

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

The description indicates a write operation (creating a commit), which implies mutation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting files or branch movement, nor does it mention required permissions or rate limits. With no annotations to supplement, the description provides only basic behavioral context.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the description lacks information about return values (no output schema), success/failure indicators, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), and permission requirements. This leaves the agent underinformed for execution.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that files are created/updated, which is already implied by the 'files' parameter description.

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 clearly states the tool creates or updates files in a Bitbucket repository via a new commit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bb_create_branch or bb_create_pull_request. It provides a specific verb-resource combination.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bb_create_branch for branches or bb_get_file for reading. The context is implied by the action of committing files, but no when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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