GitHub Push

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a 'live write' requiring human approval and can return an approval_required refusal. It does not elaborate on what is destroyed (e.g. force-push vs append) or rate limits, so it falls 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: the action first, then the when/alternative, then the return contract. No filler; the 'Returns' line is mildly redundant with the output schema but cheap and useful.

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 an output schema, the description covers the action, the routing decision against a sibling, the approval requirement, and the refusal outcome. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret a failure.

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 100% and the approval_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the approve-then-retry flow. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Commit all changes in the app repo and push') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling github_create_repo for first pushes. An agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit when ('regular tracking after milestones') and an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('For the first push of a new repo use github_create_repo'). The approval path is also called out, so the agent knows a refusal is possible.

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