git_publish_paths

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

Beyond the annotations, the description richly discloses the workflow: fetching the remote branch, refusing selected-path drift, copying files into an isolated worktree, optional verification, committing, and pushing. It explicitly states that the caller worktree/index/branch remain unchanged, which is crucial behavioral context for a destructive-flagged tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the following workflow sentence packs every important behavioral guarantee into a compact list of actions.

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 full operational sequence and key safety guarantees, and the schema fully documents the 7 parameters. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on expected result/return shape would make it more complete, but the description is already sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds general workflow context, such as 'only those files' and 'optional verification,' but it does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Safely publish only selected files.' It also clarifies the precise scope (only selected paths) and the isolation mechanism, which clearly differentiates it from broader siblings like git_push or git_commit.

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 makes the intended use case clear: publishing only selected files while avoiding changes to the caller's worktree. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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