Phased push

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuine behavior beyond that: auto_start advances start_phase forward but never backward, and skips inter-phase waits of unchanged upstream phases. It still omits what is actually pushed, to which remotes, and failure/auth behavior for an open-world operation.

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 guidance is front-loaded and each conditional sentence carries weight, but the trailing 'Concept: CONCEPT:RM-PUSH' line is internal clutter that contributes nothing for an agent, and the prose is dense with undefined phase jargon.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the phase-selection mechanics adequately but leaves the config/progress payloads, single_phase behavior, and the overall outcome of the push unspecified.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden and does explain auto_start, start_phase, and project_filter semantics substantively. But config, progress, and single_phase — including two opaque nested objects — receive no explanation anywhere, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 — 'Execute the phased git push workflow' — which clearly identifies it as the phased variant of a push. However, it never names or contrasts with the many push siblings (repository_manager_push_projects, rm_git_push, rm_git_phased_push), so an agent must rely on the name alone to disambiguate.

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?

Gives real conditional guidance for auto_start: it stands down when project_filter is set because that is 'an explicit-targeting request', and auto_start=False opts out. But it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to the other push tools, so the choice between this and push_projects is left to inference.

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