Git Push Only

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond these: it clarifies it pushes exactly once, does not require a clean workspace, requires explicit push-only intent, and that failures return the original Git error along with a manual fallback command. This transparency about the no-staging/no-commit/no-acceptance guarantees and the failure behavior is genuinely valuable and not merely restating annotations.

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 two sentences, tightly written, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the key constraint/behavior stated immediately. Every clause earns its place — the no-ops list, the clean-workspace note, the explicit-intent requirement, and the failure contract. Zero waste.

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 annotations, an output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is highly complete. It explains the safety guarantees (no accidental commit/re-acceptance), the intent requirement, and the failure behavior with a manual fallback command. For a side-effecting mutation tool, this level of disclosure is thorough and sufficient.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description in the schema. The user_intent parameter is conceptually clarified by the description (requiring explicit push-only wording), and workspace/conversation/generation params are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear, specific verb ('Push'), a resource ('an already-created local commit'), and multiple explicit constraints ('exactly once without staging, committing, rerunning Acceptance, or requiring a clean workspace'). This strongly differentiates it from sibling git_push (likely the general push) and git_commit, making purpose and scope unmistakable.

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 defines when to use it ('Push an already-created local commit exactly once') and explicitly lists what it does NOT do ('without staging, committing, rerunning Acceptance'). It also states the requirement for explicit push-only intent and that failure returns the original Git error with a manual command, which is useful decision context. However, it does not explicitly contrast against the sibling git_push tool by name or give a when-not-to-use scenario.

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