git_amend_commits

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses it is mutating, rewrites commit messages via git commands, and refuses remote main branch commits unless allowed. This covers key behavioral traits, though it could mention side effects like hash changes.

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 concise with about 4 sentences, each adding information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the phrase 'Mirrors omni-dev...' is slightly extraneous.

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?

Covers most aspects but omits the return value of the tool. With no output schema, the user/agent does not know what the tool returns after applying amendments, leaving a completeness gap.

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 has 100% coverage. Description adds value by specifying the required YAML structure (amendments list with commit, message, summary) and that the output matches `git_twiddle_commits` dry_run output.

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 applies commit message amendments from a YAML document deterministically, specifying the verb 'apply' and the resource 'commit messages.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling `git_twiddle_commits` by positioning as the apply counterpart.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use `git_twiddle_commits` with `dry_run = true` to generate the YAML, then pass it here. Also mentions that commits on remote main branch are refused unless `allow_pushed=true`, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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