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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and side effects. It correctly implies a mutating action and adds the prerequisite of a remote with PAT, but it does not disclose potential failure modes, whether the push could be non-fast-forward, or any other operational consequences. The behavior is straightforward, but the description could be more explicit about what happens on failure or conflict.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the action, then a useful prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key requirement. It could mention that a remote must already be set (e.g., via set_git_remote) or what the return value looks like, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'app' with its description. The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond referencing 'the app's commits,' so it does not elevate beyond the baseline of having full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Push') with a clear resource ('the app's commits to the upstream Git remote'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like git_pull (pull) and set_git_remote (set), so no confusion.

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 a clear precondition: 'Requires a remote with a Personal Access Token configured.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios when not to use it. The context is sufficient for a simple push operation.

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