update_feature_branch

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the branch by adding a new commit and pushing, but does not elaborate on side effects, error handling, or behavior for non-local branches. Basic transparency is achieved but could be richer.

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 sentences plus a reference; front-loaded with the key usage scenario. No wasted words, but the reference could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and prerequisites but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and precise file handling behavior.

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 only 25% (only 'repo_path' has a description). The description lists all required parameters but adds minimal meaning beyond their names. For low-coverage schemas, the description should compensate more.

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?

Clearly states the tool's action ('push additional changes'), resource ('existing feature branch or open PR'), and provides enough detail to distinguish from siblings like 'create_feature_branch' and 'create_feature_branch_pr'.

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 ('when you need to push additional changes to an existing feature branch or open PR') and mentions a prerequisite ('branch must already exist locally'). Refers to a sibling tool for an alternative. While it doesn't list all non-use cases, the context is clear.

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