git_push

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: force-push is never performed, and main/master pushes are gated behind confirmation. It omits failure modes (non-fast-forward rejection, auth failures) and what happens to the remote on rejection, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with the core action and the safety constraint front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the safety behavior is covered. But the required 'pasta' parameter is unexplained in both schema and description, and there are no annotations, leaving the definition short of complete for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'confirmado' (required for main/master, needs user OK) but never mentions 'pasta', the one required parameter, leaving it fully undocumented.

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 ('Envia a branch atual para o GitHub') plus scope qualifiers ('nunca com força', main/master restriction). An agent can tell this apart from git_pull, git_merge, and git_commit without opening any 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 a conditional rule for pushing to main/master (requires confirmado=true and explicit user approval), which is useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like git_commit or git_pull, so the broader when-to-use context is only implied.

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