cloud_push_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Pro license gate and that versions and sidecars are included in the push, but says nothing about conflict handling, overwrite semantics, authentication, or what happens on failure.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and informative, but the second sentence is marketing copy ('Kiln Pro would push your design branches...') plus an upgrade URL that does not help an agent invoke the tool. Roughly half the text is promotional filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the license prerequisite but omits return behavior, conflict/overwrite semantics, and meaning for the two required IDs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'remote' is documented, with its default). The description adds no meaning to design_id or branch_id, leaving the two required parameters unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 (Push) and resource (local branch), and scopes it precisely with '+ its versions + sidecars' to a remote. It is distinguishable from cloud_push_feature_branch and cloud_push_preset_branch only by the generic 'branch' resource, but the resource is clearly named.

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 'Requires Kiln Pro' prerequisite and the mention of pull-back/backup give some context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this generic branch push versus cloud_push_feature_branch or cloud_push_preset_branch. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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