image_push

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds security context about auth_config logging, but does not disclose that pushing overwrites remote tags or requires network access. The behavioral traits beyond annotations are partially addressed.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (security, args, returns). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses minimal, impactful language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (registry push, authentication, output), the description covers the main purpose, security, parameters, and return type. It is nearly complete, though it could detail the auth_config object format and output schema further.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing and explaining each parameter: repository, tag, and auth_config. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though auth_config lacks detailed structure.

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 'Push an image or repository to a registry', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like image_pull and image_tag by focusing on the push action.

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 a security note about auth_config and suggests using docker login instead, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or direct comparisons to siblings.

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