Sync push mirrors

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still earns credit by explaining *why* it is destructive: remote-only branches and tags are "overwritten or deleted." It also discloses asynchronous behavior — the forge only queues the sync and the push runs in the background — which no annotation conveys. The only gap is that it doesn't state permission/auth details beyond "write mode."

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 action and its timing rationale, then the destructive consequence, then the return/async contract. Every sentence supplies distinct information — no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to document the exact return payload ({sync_requested: "owner/repo"}) and warns that completion is not synchronous, directing the agent to list_push_mirrors for results. For a two-parameter, annotated mutation tool this is fully sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds only the composite form "owner/repo" rather than any new meaning for the owner or repo fields. This is the baseline case where the schema carries parameter semantics and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a repository (owner/repo) to all of its push mirrors now" — and explicitly scopes it as an immediate action rather than the scheduled interval. That framing lets an agent separate it from list_push_mirrors, add_push_mirror, and delete_push_mirror without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives the selecting condition ("now, instead of waiting for their interval"), a hard prerequisite ("Requires write mode"), and a follow-up route ("check each mirror's last sync time and error with list_push_mirrors afterwards"). An agent knows both when to call it and what to do next, which is unusually explicit.

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