Push Local Changes to Litewrite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out the mechanism: new/changed files uploaded, removed local files deleted server-side, and the manifest refreshed — an agent learns precisely what gets destroyed and why the operation is idempotent.

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?

Front-loads the core action and mechanism, then the prerequisite, then args and return. Every sentence earns its place, though the args block restates the 100%-covered schema field and is slightly redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the deletion side effect, the prerequisite tool, and a rough outline of the return value. Missing only edge-case behavior such as conflict resolution, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description merely restates 'projectId (string, required): The project id', adding no format or source detail beyond it, which pins this at the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — upload local working-copy changes back to Litewrite — and the 'git-push style' analogy plus the explicit mirror-vs-manifest comparison distinguish it from siblings like litewrite_pull and litewrite_write_file. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to litewrite_status first to preview changes, which is a concrete prerequisite. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. versus litewrite_upload_file for single-file uploads), so it is clear context without full alternative coverage.

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