cf_push

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says 'deploy (push)' but omits side effects, required targeting/auth, whether it creates or updates an app, whether it starts the app by default, or what happens on failure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and clear, though its brevity leaves no room for supporting usage or behavioral context.

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 an eight-parameter deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, side-effect disclosure, and any distinction from related deployment siblings.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb ('Deploy (push)') and resource ('an application to Cloud Foundry'), so the core action is immediately clear. It does not differentiate from siblings such as cf_deploy_workflow, cf_start, or cf_restart, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is provided. The description does not mention targeting, authentication, or how this differs from alternative deployment or lifecycle tools like cf_deploy_workflow or cf_start.

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