obsidian_push

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a side-effecting operation on git state, which is useful, but it does not mention potential impacts like failed pushes, auth requirements, or whether changes are reversible.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words. The action, scope, and target are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what the tool does and can invoke it. But it does not explain success/failure behavior or side effects beyond the bare action, and it gives no guidance relative to the sibling pull tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter already has a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific operation ('commit and push'), a clear scope ('all vault changes'), and a destination ('git'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_pull or vault editing tools. It is not tautological or vague.

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 phrasing 'manually commit and push' implies when to use it: when the user wants to sync vault changes to git. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when pulling changes is more appropriate.

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