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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states the permission gate, that default-branch pushes are treated as destructive and require review approval, that force-push is refused, and whose token is used (acting user's or a one-repo installation token). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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 core action is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by only the constraints that change behavior (switch, review gate, force-push ban, token identity). No filler or restatement of the name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers permission gating, destructive-action review, and refusal cases; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is slightly thin on what a refusal looks like at call time, but otherwise complete.

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 branch/github/force are already documented in the schema itself, and the description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing that force-push is refused. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening line names a specific verb and resource plus scope: "Push a branch from this run's checkout." This clearly separates it from sibling write tools like github_merge, github_open_pr, and github_delete, which operate on PRs or repos rather than pushing a run's checkout.

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 spells out the enabling conditions (org's agent-writes switch), the escalation path for the default branch (org review settings, human approval by default), and an explicit exclusion (force-push refused). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as opening a PR instead of pushing directly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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