push_documents

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

Beyond the annotation destructiveHint=false, the description reveals key behaviors: skip unchanged files, overwrite requirement, no deletion of remote documents, and dry-run preview. This adds substantial context about side effects and safety, going well beyond the annotation's minimal information.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by concise behavioral details and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core upload behavior, skip logic, overwrite requirement, no-deletion guarantee, and dry-run option, which are essential for safe usage. It omits details about the pattern parameter (default '*.md') and expected return behavior, but given the presence of a schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a bulk upload tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for dry_run and overwrite by explaining their purpose (preview and overwriting differing files). However, pattern, project_id, and source_directory are not explained in the description, relying on schema titles and defaults alone, so compensation is incomplete.

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 'Upload a local folder's files into the project' clearly states a specific action (upload), resource (local folder files), and destination (project). It distinguishes from siblings like pull_documents (reverse operation) and write_document (single-file write), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides operational context: unchanged files are skipped, overwrite=true is needed for differing files, and remote deletions are not propagated, plus dry_run=true for preview. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling list implies bulk vs. single operations.

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