create_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates or updates a file and creates a commit, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing content, the default branch behavior, or any authentication requirements.

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 three well-organized sentences: first stating the purpose, then listing usage triggers, and finally summarizing the key inputs. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 effectively conveys the core function and provides explicit usage guidance, which is sufficient for an agent to select this tool. However, it omits some behavioral nuances like branch handling and return values (no output schema exists), so it is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 6 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description only summarizes a subset (path, content, message) and adds no extra semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 that the tool creates or updates a file in a GitHub repository and generates a commit with a given message. The verb+resource (create/update file -> commit) is explicit, and the tool is distinct from siblings like create_repository or create_issue, which target different actions.

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 explicitly lists trigger phrases for when to use the tool ('commitear', 'guardar cambios', 'agregar un archivo', 'modificar un archivo'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it nor explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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