commit_and_push_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'creates or updates,' which implies mutation, but it fails to mention that it commits and pushes, how it handles existing files, branch behavior, authentication requirements, or failure modes. The name hints at commit/push, but the description itself lacks these critical details.

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 sentence with no superfluous words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and a mutation operation. It is too brief to be considered 'appropriately sized' for the tool's complexity, though not as egregious as a tautology.

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 tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention result formats or side effects. Given that this is a write operation on a GitHub repository with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It leaves out key context like branch defaults, overwriting behavior, commit semantics, and potential errors.

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 compensate. It does not explain the meaning or usage of any of the five parameters (repo_name, file_path, content, commit_message, branch). While parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, the description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Creates or updates a file directly in a GitHub repository.' This uses a specific verb (creates/updates) and a distinct resource (file in a GitHub repository), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle calendar events, tasks, issues, and PRs. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While sibling tools exist for GitHub issues and PRs, the description does not contrast file operations with those, so usage context is entirely absent.

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