push_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real gating constraints: GITHUB_MCP_ALLOW_PUSH=true and an owner confirmation phrase. It omits what a push actually does — force vs fast-forward, which remote ref is targeted, error behavior when the flag is unset, and whether history can be overwritten.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisites following. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It never states the literal confirmation phrase value or the return/error behavior, both of which are needed to invoke the tool successfully.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. Mentioning "the owner confirmation phrase" does connect to confirmationPhrase and signals its purpose, but the exact expected value or format is never stated, leaving the agent unable to supply a correct value from the text alone.

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: "Push the current local branch to origin," which tells an agent exactly what operation occurs. It does not differentiate from close siblings like commit_and_push or commit_changes, so an agent cannot tell from this text whether committing happens first.

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 implies when the tool applies (a local branch that needs to reach origin) and names prerequisites, but gives no explicit guidance on choosing it over commit_and_push or commit_changes. The gating conditions are stated as facts rather than usage decision criteria.

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