Commit a finished feature

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: commits changes, pushes conditionally, no-ops when disabled, mirrors pads for graduated projects, uses local git credentials, and auto-status on commit. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with primary action. Could be slightly more concise but remains clear and informative.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations on complexity, the description covers all relevant context: conditions, behavioral nuances, parameter interactions, and edge cases like graduated projects.

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 coverage is 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The description adds meaningful context for push, paths, and message params, and indirectly covers title/ticket format. Could be more explicit about required project and ticket format but overall helpful.

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 commits and optionally pushes changes with a specific message format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like open_pull_request by focusing on the commit action.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (git enabled), when it's a no-op (disabled), how push behavior is resolved (gitMode or explicit), and when to use paths to avoid sweeping other changes. Also covers graduated projects mirroring.

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