cloud_push_feature_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly fails: nothing about authentication, conflict/overwrite behavior, or what remote state changes. It does leak one real behavioral fact — a Pro-tier entitlement gate — but it is presented as an advertisement rather than operational context.

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 actual purpose is correctly front-loaded in one sentence, but the remaining three lines are pure upsell copy ('Everything in Free, plus calibration...', 'Requires Kiln Pro', an upgrade URL) that contribute nothing to invoking the tool and inflate the definition by roughly 4x.

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 4-parameter cloud mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage, the definition omits return/error behavior, conflict handling, and parameter meaning. Only the bare action is conveyed.

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 only 25% (just the `remote` default), so the description needed to compensate and does not: `branch_id`, `feature_id`, and `design_id` are never explained, and no push syntax, format, or expected value is given. Only a loose conceptual mapping ('local branch' / 'remote') exists.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource+scope: pushing a *local feature branch and its versions* to a remote, which distinguishes it from the branch-only (`cloud_push_branch`) and release-only (`cloud_push_feature_release`) siblings in the family. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus `cloud_push_branch`, `cloud_push_feature_release`, or the pull counterparts. The only contextual hint is 'Requires Kiln Pro,' which is buried in promotional copy rather than framed as a usage prerequisite.

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