commit_files

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by specifying atomic commit and dry run capability, informing the agent about transactional behavior and the default preview mode. No contradictory information.

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 a single sentence followed by an important default note. It front-loads the core function and key behavioral trait, with no wasted words. Highly efficient.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., commit ID, diff details). For a potentially complex batch operation, knowing the response structure would be helpful. Otherwise, the description covers action types and dry run behavior adequately.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds the context of atomic commit and default dry_run, but does not enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 atomically commits multiple file actions (create, update, delete, move, chmod) in a single commit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file, update_file, delete_file which handle single actions, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions that dry_run=true by default, guiding safe usage (preview before actual commit). It implies batch usage by listing multiple action types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus single-action siblings or provide exclusions.

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