contentrain_submit

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

Describes the key behavior (push to remote) and clarifies that PR creation is separate. Annotations already provide idempotentHint, and destructiveHint indicates non-destructive. The description adds context beyond annotations, though it could mention conflict handling or permissions.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and include a critical usage warning. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose, usage constraints, and parameter semantics. Given no output schema, it sufficiently explains what the tool does and how to use it.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions that add meaning beyond the schema: 'Specific branch names to push (omit for all contentrain/* branches)' and 'Optional message for the push operation' provide useful guidance. Schema coverage is 100%, so extra context justifies a high score.

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 clearly states the action 'Push contentrain/* branches to remote' and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that PR creation is handled separately, and instructs not to manually push or create PRs.

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?

Provides explicit instruction to not manually push or create PRs, guiding proper use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for related actions like merging or applying, which would enhance guidance.

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