If you have never used tools that can automatically link commit messages to stories you are truly missing out.
Sometimes the extra time and effort is already made up for in the review process, which without proper context could drag out and cause a lot of back and forth. Sometimes it might save somebody hours and days of investigation time. This is not to mention the benefits that both the author and the readers of the commit get by better understanding both the problem and the solution.
Anyway good luck fixing anything trusting commit messages from long time ago. Code is truth and if you won't investigate you still don't know how it works.
It's more work for you, but it saves the rest of the team even more time. It helps the dev reading it in three years understand, when he git blames to figure out why you did this strange thing.
Why is this change necessary? What assumptions is it based on? Were any alternative solutions considered? Why was this solution chosen from among the alternatives? Are there any non-obvious implications that this change has?
But none of the proposed rules actually answer those 5 questions in their explanation.