image_push

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the local image must already bear the target name, bare names push to Docker Hub, and `auth_config` carries credentials that may be logged verbatim. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: purpose sentence, usage prerequisite, security note, and parameter list. The security note is relevant and not filler. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but each sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a single-purpose push operation with an output schema. The description covers prerequisites, registry behavior, credential handling, and a return type. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but for this scope it is reasonably complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by listing each arg (`repository`, `tag`, `auth_config`) with a brief meaning and clarifying the `repository[:tag]` syntax in the main text. This is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Push an image or repository to a registry.' It also clarifies the target naming requirement and distinguishes from related tools like image_pull and image_tag by explaining the prerequisite tagging step.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after tagging the image locally with `image_tag`. It also provides alternatives for authentication (`system_login` or host `docker login`) and warns about private registry credential handling, making the usage context clear.

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