sync_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('push') but doesn't describe what 'push' entails (e.g., whether it creates commits, handles conflicts, requires authentication, or has side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary words or redundant phrasing.

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 a mutation tool ('push') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., success/failure outcomes, error handling), prerequisites, or how it differs from siblings like 'force_sync'. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool reliably.

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 the schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'commitMessage'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain when to provide a commit message or what happens if omitted). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('push') and resources ('local data to GitHub'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sync_pull' (pull operation) and 'force_sync' (likely a different sync mechanism), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'force_sync' or 'create_backup'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a GitHub repository setup) or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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