pushRepo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds significant context by specifying it 'writes to the git remote' under 'credentials configured there', disclosing that it makes external changes and depends on remote authentication. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail error conditions or rollback behavior. The added value justifies a score above the annotation baseline.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action ('Push staged changes'), and the second adds critical context about external writes and credentials. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and preconditions: it requires staged changes and a configured remote. It does not describe return values or potential errors, but those are not mandatory when output schema is absent. The description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in the broader git workflow, with no obvious gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only confirms that 'staged changes' are what is pushed. Since the schema already documents repo, staging, username, and password effectively, the description's marginal contribution warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 clear resource ('staged changes of an abapGit repository'), and the destination ('to the remote'). It also adds the clarifying detail that this is outward-facing and writes to the remote, which distinguishes it from local-only operations. This is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like gitPullRepo or stageRepo.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after staging changes in an abapGit repo, to send them to the remote. It also notes that it uses the remote's configured credentials, which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, though the tool name and purpose make the use case obvious. This is slightly above minimal because it indicates the required precondition (staged changes) and the external nature.

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