Push the current commit

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the destination must be allowlisted, force push is disallowed, and local per-project enablement is required. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand operational constraints.

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, 22 words, with zero fluff. The core action and constraints are front-loaded, and the prerequisite (local enablement) is stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens if the remote is not allowlisted, what 'enabled locally per project' means in practice, error scenarios, or the return value. The agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior or know if it can call it correctly without additional information.

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 0%, and the description does not reference any parameters. The tool has 3 parameters (remote, projectId, expectedCommitSha), but the description never explains their meaning, relationships, or how they relate to the action (e.g., 'current commit' vs expectedCommitSha). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides only names and patterns, not semantic guidance.

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 clear, specific action: push the current commit without force to an allowlisted remote/branch. It distinguishes itself from sibling git tools (e.g., git_commit creates, git_push pushes) and adds constraints (without force, allowlisted). No tautology or ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied (when you have a reviewed commit and need to push it) but not explicitly stated. No exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites beyond the 'must be enabled locally per project' note. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool or when another tool would be more appropriate, but the purpose is clear enough.

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