cuemap_project_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive overwrite risk, the approval requirement, and the reliance on the host's AWS CLI credentials. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'uploads a project' statement.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first names the action and mechanism; the second delivers the critical safety precondition and risk. Every word adds value.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, how it does it, and the key risks. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the S3 URI being exact and the approval requirement, but it does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 description states a specific action ('Pack and upload a CueMap project') plus the execution mechanism (engine host's configured AWS CLI). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cuemap_project_pack, which likely only creates a local pack without uploading.

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 description gives an explicit precondition: use only after approval of the exact S3 destination. It also warns about the destructive possibility of replacing an existing object. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the approval gate is a strong usage guideline.

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