git_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical trait that no actual git push occurs and the artifact is a diff uploaded to an HTTP API. It stops short of covering auth/config requirements, what the upload payload contains, or failure behavior, which are material for a network-mutating tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core divergence from the expected git behavior, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation tool the description conveys the essential divergence from git push, which is the highest-value fact. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the agent without any understanding of return behavior, API configuration prerequisites, or error outcomes.

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 already documents cwd, args, base, and message, including the important note that args are forwarded as metadata rather than executed. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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, non-obvious action: create a diff file and upload its path to a configured HTTP API rather than running git push. This clearly contradicts the expectation set by the name git_push, which is precisely the clarification an agent needs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling git_push_new_branch.

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 phrase 'instead of running git push' implies this is the push-equivalent in this environment, which is useful positional context. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over git_push_new_branch or what prerequisites (e.g. configured API endpoint) must hold before calling it.

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