Commit a finished feature

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

Beyond annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint=false), the description adds that it runs on the local machine using its git credentials and no-ops when disabled. It clearly indicates a write operation without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior and conditions but does not hint at return values or success/failure indications, leaving some gap in completeness.

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 40%. The description adds context about message format (ticket and title), but doesn't fully detail all 5 parameters. It partially compensates for low schema coverage by explaining the commit message structure.

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, and mentions no-ops when disabled. It distinguishes from siblings like set_git_config 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?

The description indicates when to use (git integration enabled) and notes it no-ops with a reason when disabled. It implicitly suggests use for committing features, but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or provide 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.