ateam_github_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-creating the repo and atomic commits, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, conflict handling, or reversibility. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then usage guidance. Every word adds value. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not mention return values (e.g., commit hash, success message). It also omits prerequisites like authentication or git configuration, and error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema. The text reiterates the commit message default, which is already in the schema. The context about auto-creating repo and atomic commits is helpful but not specific to parameters.

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 pushes the deployed solution to GitHub, auto-creates repo on first use, and commits the full bundle atomically. It uses a specific verb (push) and resource (solution to GitHub), distinguishing it from siblings like ateam_github_pull or ateam_github_rollback.

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 advises using after ateam_build_and_run to version the solution or anytime to snapshot, giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools for other scenarios.

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