team_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool and delivers little: it does not say whether an existing remote secret with the same name is overwritten, what happens on a bad passphrase, whether team membership/permissions are required, or whether the push is reversible. Only the direction of data flow is disclosed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the action verb first. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 write operation into a shared vault with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, overwrite/conflict behavior, error conditions, and any hint of the return value. An agent could invoke this correctly by schema alone but would not understand its consequences.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the note that omitting value resolves from the local vault. The description's phrase 'a local secret' is loosely consistent but adds no format, naming, or passphrase semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with direction: pushing a local secret into the shared team vault. The directional verb implicitly contrasts with the sibling team_pull, but no sibling or scope boundary is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus team_pull, team_resolve, store_secret, or create_share_link, nor any stated prerequisites such as the team vault needing team_init or a valid passphrase. The agent must infer the entire selection context.

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