Conftest push

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool never handles credentials (security-related), requires specific paths, and expects conftest binary availability. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action; the second lists prerequisites and constraints. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, preconditions, credential handling, path constraints, and binary requirements. It is complete for an agent to understand how and when to invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: for `repository`, it reiterates credential pre-configuration; for `policy`, it mentions the default (`./policy`) and the constraint about allowed paths. This enhances the agent's understanding.

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 'Package the local Rego policy directory as an OCI artifact and push it to a registry using `conftest push`.' It uses a specific verb ('package... and push') and resource ('local Rego policy directory... as OCI artifact'), distinguishing it from siblings like conftest_pull, conftest_test, etc.

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: 'Registry credentials must be pre-configured... this tool never handles credentials.' It also specifies preconditions: policy directory must be inside OPA_MCP_ALLOWED_PATHS and requires `conftest` on PATH or `CONFTEST_BINARY` set. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent to make decisions.

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