pushRepo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Pushes changes,' implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements (hinted by optional 'user' and 'password' params), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 waste—'Pushes changes to a Git repository.' It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, side effects), parameter usage beyond schema basics, and output expectations. For a tool that modifies a Git repository, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'repo' as 'The Git repository object,' 'staging' as 'The staging information object'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'repo' and 'staging' objects should be structured or their interrelationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo' in terms of when to use one versus the other, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether changes need to be staged first) or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of function without usage context.

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