image_push

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. It discloses a security risk: `auth_config` may be logged verbatim by MCP clients, and recommends using host `docker login` to reuse cached credentials. It also explains the behavior of bare repository names (pushing to Docker Hub) and the need for pre-tagging. This is crucial for safe and correct use.

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 moderately sized but every sentence contributes value: action, prerequisite, auth, security warning, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. Not overly verbose, but the args section could be more integrated; still, it earns its place by clarifying parameters.

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 push operation with authentication requirements, the description covers the necessary steps, security considerations, and return type. It mentions the return value ('Push output as a string') and provides prerequisites. Despite not describing error cases, it gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially with the existing annotations and output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's args section is essential. It provides one-line meanings for each parameter: repository (image repository), tag (tag to push), auth_config (optional registry auth). While it doesn't delve into formats or edge cases, the earlier prose clarifies that repository should be registry-qualified and tag is optional. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could be more detailed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Push an image or repository to a registry.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like image_pull and image_tag by clarifying that it uploads an already-tagged image to a remote registry. The prerequisite about tagging first reinforces the specific purpose.

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 provides concrete usage context: the local image must be pre-tagged with the target name, bare names push to Docker Hub, and private registries require credentials. It also recommends using `docker login` over `auth_config` for security, but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., when to use `image_pull` or `registry_tags`). The guidance is clear and actionable, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparative scenarios.

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