push_image

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

The annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a security warning that auth_config credentials may be logged, and that it returns a string output. This goes beyond the minimal annotation 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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Security, args, returns). Every sentence serves a purpose (security warning, parameter list, return type). No superfluous text.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage and minimal annotations, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps. It does not explain how to specify a registry URL, error handling, or the nature of the 'repository' path. The output schema exists but is not detailed, so the return type mention helps, but more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter ('repository - The image repository', 'tag - The tag to push', 'auth_config - Optional registry authentication config'). These add meaning but are minimal; format details and object structure are missing.

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 an image or repository to a registry.' The verb 'Push' and the resource 'image or repository' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like pull_image or push_plugin.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a security note about auth_config, but does not discuss prerequisites, context, or when to prefer other tools like push_plugin or load_image.

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