Push an image

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, non-destructive, idempotent), it discloses that the push may make the image public, that it relies on a docker login the person performed themselves, and that without credentials it reports the command the user must run in their own terminal. The security constraint (never ask for password or token) is exactly the kind of behavioral guidance annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and default registry, then layered with prerequisites and safety rules; every sentence carries weight. The chain of short 'It ... It ...' clauses is slightly choppy but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: credential source, failure behavior without login, confirmation requirement, and public-visibility risk. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the example format, so the baseline is high. The description still adds real meaning by explaining that the image string's registry prefix chooses the destination registry, which the pattern alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (upload a local image to its registry) plus the default-registry rule that determines the target destination. It also explicitly names tag_image as the related tool for renaming, so it is distinguishable from pull_image and siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: rename with tag_image first if the image name starts with another registry host, and confirm with the person before publishing, naming the registry and tag. The alternative path and the required human confirmation are both spelled out rather than inferred.

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