Phased Push

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds one useful piece of context not in the annotations - that arbitrary host commands are prohibited - but says nothing about phases, inter-phase waits, background jobs, or what a phased push actually mutates. For an 11-parameter bulk write operation this is a substantial gap.

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 tool identity and the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 an 11-parameter bulk Git operation with no required parameters and an output schema available, the description omits the phased-execution model, background job lifecycle, and how projects/target_project scope the operation. The output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the core behavioral model an agent needs is absent.

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%, and many parameters (phase, job_id, command, projects, auto_start, target_project) carry detailed inline descriptions that reference the 'phased_push' action. The tool description adds nothing about any parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Phased push (rm_git)" essentially restates the tool name and title, and "Typed bulk Git operations" is a generic category statement rather than a description of what this specific tool does. It never says what a phased push is (ordered multi-phase push across repositories) or how it differs from the sibling rm_git_push or repository_manager_phased_push.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this tool over rm_git_push, rm_git_raw, or repository_manager_phased_push. The only directional hint is the negative constraint that arbitrary host commands are prohibited, which implicitly steers the agent elsewhere for raw commands but gives no positive usage context.

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