git_push

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that this is an 'external mutation' and 'approval-gated by the developer policy', complementing annotations that already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. It does not detail consequences on the remote, but the annotations already cover the destructive profile.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the policy caveat cleanly separated. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 critical safety context (external mutation, approval gate), and the schema provides defaults for the optional parameters. However, it omits behavior around conflicts, force-pushing, or expected output, leaving some operational details to inference.

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 description provides no parameter-level information. The schema documents path, branch, and remote, but set_upstream is left undocumented (75% coverage), and the description does nothing to clarify this boolean flag or any parameter interplay.

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 and resource ('Push a Git branch to a remote'), which clearly communicates the operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling Git tools like git_commit and git_checkout by focusing on the push action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions must be met. The approval-gating note is a policy warning, not usage direction, and no sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative.

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