Add a push mirror

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious credential model: the token comes from the server's FORGEJO_MIRROR_TOKEN env var and must never be passed as an argument. It also explains the use_ssh branch and that the response then carries a `public_key` to install on the remote — exactly the kind of side-effect/auth detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites and credential handling. No filler; the parenthetical example ('e.g. a GitHub mirror') makes the intent concrete in a few words.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the notable return case (public_key when use_ssh=true) plus the write-mode requirement, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It omits failure behavior and whether the mirror syncs immediately on creation, a minor gap for a mutating 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by clarifying that no credential parameter exists (env-var sourced) and by framing use_ssh as the key-auth path, discouraging an agent from inventing a token argument. It adds no detail on interval, branch_filter, or sync_on_commit beyond the schema.

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 ('Add a push mirror') and explains the mechanism concretely: Forgejo/Codeberg auto-pushes this repo to an external remote without a local `git push`. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete_push_mirror, list_push_mirrors, and sync_push_mirrors.

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?

Explicitly gives the precondition 'Requires write mode' and names the SSH alternative ('or set use_ssh=true for key auth'), which is actionable guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sync_push_mirrors (manual trigger vs. scheduled) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the top band.

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