commit_changes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the mutating action (staging and committing) and hints at a validation gate through the word 'approved'. But it omits edge cases (e.g., no changes, untracked files), whether it pushes, and what happens if the message is not approved.

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 12 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks details on path semantics, failure modes, and workflow integration. Given the large sibling set and no annotations, more context is needed to guide selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'message' as the 'approved commit message', but the 'path' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics unexplained. The statement 'all workspace changes' seems to contradict the existence of a path parameter.

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 uses specific verbs 'Stage' and 'commit', names the resource ('all workspace changes'), and adds a scope ('with the approved commit message'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like git_add and git_commit, which are lower-level operations.

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?

The phrase 'Stage all workspace changes' implies a full-commit scenario, and 'approved commit message' suggests a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over git_add/git_commit, so usage guidance is only implied.

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