git_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by revealing important non-obvious behavior: the .codex-bridge/ folder is never staged, commits require explicit user approval, and the tool never touches remotes or pushes. This gives the agent the safety and side-effect context it needs for a mutating git operation.

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 focused sentences front-load the purpose and then layer critical constraints without filler. Every sentence earns its place: the main operation, the important .codex-bridge exclusion, the user-approval requirement, and the never-push guarantee.

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 is complete for a commit tool: it states what happens, what is excluded, when to call it, and what it will never do. While there is no output schema or annotations, the behavior an agent needs to safely select and invoke this tool is fully covered, with parameters described thoroughly in the input schema.

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 handles most parameter clarity. The description goes further by explaining the files default behavior ('or all changes') and adding the special exclusion that .codex-bridge/ is never staged. The project and session_token parameters remain covered mainly by the schema, which is sufficient given the high schema coverage.

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's action with a specific verb and resource: "Stage the named files (or all changes) and commit them with the given message." It also distinguishes this from git inspection or push behavior via the .codex-bridge exclusion and the "Never pushes" instruction, which makes the tool's role unambiguous among its siblings.

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 gives clear, explicit when-to-use guidance: "Call ONLY after the user explicitly approved the message and the files in chat." It also provides a firm when-not-to-use constraint with "Never pushes — remotes are never touched." However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as git_status or git_diff for inspecting changes before committing, so it stops short of full sibling-to-sibling guidance.

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