commit_to_gitown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the required GitHub token permission and the building-growth effect, but does not explain failure modes, return values, or whether the commit is immediately pushed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the effect and the auth prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 description covers the essential purpose, effect, and auth requirement, but lacks details on response behavior, error handling, or how the outcome will be observed. Given no output schema, this leaves a meaningful gap for a complete 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds limited value beyond the schema, only reiterating the token requirement rather than enriching parameter meaning.

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 action ('Crea un commit') and the target resource ('repositorio de Gitown'), with a specific scope (on behalf of the agent). It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_town_status by emphasizing the write/commit operation vs status checking.

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 description provides an implicit usage context (commit actions to grow the building) and states the token prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_town_status or offer when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the user to infer the appropriate context.

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