push_documents

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

Beyond the single destructiveHint:false annotation, the description discloses skipped unchanged files, overwrite requirements, the never-delete guarantee, threshold behavior, error-stop semantics, and the need to relay warnings. This is rich behavioral context that materially affects how an agent should run and handle the result.

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 paragraph is dense but every sentence adds operational value, and key behaviors are front-loaded before edge cases. It is slightly monolithic and has minor overlap between 'remote documents missing locally are never deleted' and 'the project's uploaded files are untouched', but it remains efficient.

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 complex six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers preview mode, overwrite handling, deletion safety, size-limit aborts, persistence of already-pushed files, and verbatim warning handling. These are exactly the conditions an agent needs to predict before invoking the 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 by explaining dry_run, overwrite, allow_search_mode, project_id, and source_directory. The pattern parameter is only implicitly covered via the 'text files' wording and the default '*.md', but no explicit glob/filter semantics are given.

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 action, upload local text files into a project, and clearly distinguishes the direction from pull_documents. It also establishes scope boundaries ('the project's uploaded files are untouched and cannot be pushed'), so an agent understands exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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 gives concrete parameter guidance: use dry_run=true to preview, set overwrite=true for differing files, and use allow_search_mode=true to accept the threshold. It also states an exclusion, that project-uploaded files cannot be pushed, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when to prefer write_document/pull_documents.

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