github_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface one genuinely useful behavioral trait — the operation requires human approval — but omits destructive/reversibility context, branch behavior, and what happens when approval_id is absent or invalid. This is partial coverage 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 action is front-loaded and there is no wasted prose, which suits the dimension. But the telegraphic fragments are terse to the point of under-specification, so brevity here reflects omission rather than efficient communication.

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 write operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a thin one-line description, the definition is not complete enough. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the missing branch/commit semantics and approval flow leave an agent with real gaps before calling it.

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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Commit' loosely implies a commit message and 'Human approval' loosely ties to approval_id, but app_dir and the required nature of message are never explained, leaving the schema entirely 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 specific verbs and a resource ('Commit + push changes'), which is enough for an agent to recognize the operation without opening the schema. The parenthetical '(regular tracking)' is cryptic and does not clarify scope or how it differs from any other tracking mode, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Human approval.' implies this tool is gated and that a review step is required before use, and '(regular tracking)' hints at a variant mode. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage conditions largely implied.

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