pushRepo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'pushes changes' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (though user/password parameters hint at this), whether it's destructive (overwrites remote history), rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 Git push operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'changes' entails (commits? staged files?), success/failure behaviors, or integration with sibling tools like 'stageRepo'. Given the complexity of Git operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 four parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful context about parameter usage, relationships (e.g., that 'repo' and 'staging' are required while 'user' and 'password' are optional for authentication), or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('pushes changes') and target resource ('to a Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling Git tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo' beyond the basic verb difference.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing staged changes first), nor does it reference related tools such as 'stageRepo' or 'gitPullRepo' from the sibling list.

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