sync_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (pushing local .context/ files to remote git) and an important side effect (auto-generating SUMMARY.md). It could add more detail about destructive effects, commit behavior, or git prerequisites, but the described behavior is specific and not misleading.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by explicit usage triggers and exclusions. No filler or redundant restatement of the parameter schema.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the generated artifact, and when to use it. Minor gaps remain, such as git prerequisites, branch behavior, or failure semantics, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 covers both parameters fully (100%), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds the context that SUMMARY.md is auto-generated, which aligns with the summary parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Push'), a concrete resource ('local .context/ files'), and a target ('remote git'), and adds that SUMMARY.md is auto-generated. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by framing itself as the save/upload/push operation and explicitly excluding pull/load/restore scenarios.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers such as '/sync-save', 'sync push', 'save context', and 'upload context', and explicitly says not to use it for pull/load/restore/new-device recovery. This is strong routing guidance that prevents misuse.

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