cloud_push_preset_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tier requirement (Kiln Pro), but says nothing about whether the push is forced, how conflicts or diverged remotes are handled, what gets mutated on the remote, or what is returned. The remaining sentences are marketing for the Pro plan and add no behavioral information.

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?

Only the first sentence earns its place. The following three sentences are an upsell pitch plus a URL with tracking parameters, which is noise for a tool-selection decision and dilutes the front-loaded purpose statement.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description should cover preconditions, conflict behavior, and parameter roles. It covers only the tier gate, leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke it correctly.

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 25%, with preset_id and branch_id required but undocumented, and design_id entirely unexplained. The description names neither parameter nor clarifies the distinction between preset_id, branch_id, design_id, and the "default" remote value, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (push) and resource (a local decoration-preset branch) plus the destination (a remote), which cleanly separates it from cloud_push_branch and cloud_push_feature_branch. It is clear, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Requires Kiln Pro" implies a gating condition the agent must check before calling, which is genuinely useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to push versus pull, when to use the release counterparts, or what preconditions (branch existence, remote configured) must hold.

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