git_push

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

The description lists optional parameters but does not explicitly warn about the destructive potential of the 'force' push option. Since no annotations are provided, the description should more clearly convey the risk of overwriting remote history.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists parameters and alternatives. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points, but current structure is very readable without wasted words.

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 description adequately explains the tool's function and options, but omits information about return values or output (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). Given no output schema, adding a brief note on what to expect would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying default values for remote ('origin') and branch ('current'), and explaining that force, set_upstream, and dry_run are boolean options, going beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 purpose: publishing local commits to the remote. It distinguishes from sibling tools like commit_and_push_changes, which handles a combined workflow, and creates_pull_request, showing thoughtful differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (local commits ready) and recommends an alternative (commit_and_push_changes for single-step), plus references create_pull_request. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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