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; the description only adds the security constraint that arbitrary host commands are blocked, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about remote mutation consequences, parallel/bulk execution via threads, background jobs, or the read-only status/cancel actions the schema implies.

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 no filler, so nothing is wasted, but for an 11-parameter bulk tool the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than tight structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but an 11-parameter tool with zero required params and multiple action modes needs the description to explain action selection and the bulk/job model. Neither is covered, leaving the agent dependent entirely on the schema field descriptions.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter meaning of its own. Critically it never mentions the action-selection concept that phase, job_id, command, message, summary, auto_start, run_precommit and target_project all depend on.

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?

"Push (rm_git)" restates the tool name/title, and the only added clause, "Typed bulk Git operations," is a category label rather than a specific verb+resource. Worse, the title says Push while the schema exposes commit, commit_code, status, cancel, raw and phased_push parameters, so an agent cannot tell what this tool actually does.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many siblings (rm_git_status, rm_git_commit, rm_git_raw, rm_git_phased_push, repository_manager_push_projects). The only usage-adjacent statement is the constraint that arbitrary host commands are prohibited, which is a limitation, not a routing rule.

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