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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the existing-connection prerequisite, that it mutates the user's actual Git repo, and the 'Never retried' retry semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' marker, then purpose, prerequisite, and side effect in a tight sequence. The trailing POST path is somewhat redundant given the tool's naming but is minor overhead.

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 an 11-param destructive write tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, mutation effect, and retry behavior. It does not describe what the response returns (commit SHA, PR URL), but no output schema exists so that gap is small.

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 11 params (path, branch, language, push_type, PR fields) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces push_type branching but adds no format or default detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (push) + resource (resource files) + explicit destination (linked Git repository, naming the providers) and scope (project-level). No sibling does anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable from the create/delete/list/download siblings.

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?

States a real prerequisite ('the connection must already exist') and explains how push_type selects commit-to-branch vs pull-request behavior. No sibling offers an alternative path to this action, so there is nothing meaningful to exclude, but there is also no explicit 'use when X' framing.

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