创建受控Git提交

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

The description discloses defaults and side-effect boundaries: default-disabled behavior, prerequisite server write permission, required confirmation token, and no automatic push. Since annotations are all false/empty, the description carries the full burden and does so clearly.

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 dense sentences convey scope, prerequisites, confirmation, and no-push behavior with no wasted words. The most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the essential invocation conditions: what may be committed, required permission, required confirmation, and absence of auto-push. It lacks an explicit statement of return value/commit outcome, but this is not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description only partially compensates: it implies files are safe paths and references the confirmation word, but it does not explain the message parameter or how file paths should be specified. The confirmation semantics are already visible in the schema const.

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 names a specific action (commit) and a specific resource (explicitly listed safe paths), and the title identifies it as a controlled Git commit. It is distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are either read-only information getters or release lifecycle operations.

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?

It provides clear usage context: only safe/path-limited commits, disabled by default, requires server-side write permission and the CREATE_COMMIT confirmation. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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