push_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'hace commit' (makes a commit), implying a write operation, but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the action is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence (9 words) with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it could be expanded to include critical usage details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or prerequisites like branch existence. Critical context for reliable invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining the role of 'content' (full file content) or 'message' (commit message). It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 performs a commit on a file in an existing branch. It identifies the verb 'commit' and resource 'file in branch', though it lacks precision about whether the commit is pushed to remote or just local. It is not a tautology and distinguishes adequately from other tools like create_branch or create_pull_request.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_branch or create_pull_request. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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