git_push

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value on top by stating the excluded operations (no force push, no ref deletion) and the tags-mode override, which directly tempers what an agent might assume from destructiveHint=true.

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 sentences with zero filler; the core action and its default come first, followed by the restriction and the mode switch. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 that an output schema exists (return values needn't be described) and annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the essentials of a destructive outward-facing operation. The remaining gaps are parameter-level, already penalised under parameter semantics rather than counted twice.

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 none of the five parameters carry descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'branch' (defaults to current) and 'tags' (pushes tags instead of a branch), but leaves 'repo' and 'set_upstream' completely undefined and only hints at 'remote' via the word 'a remote', never disclosing the origin default.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Push a branch ... to a remote') and clarifies the default (current branch), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like git_commit or run_command, but the git-push framing 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?

The description implies the post-commit usage context and rules out two modes ('Force pushes and ref deletion are not supported'), which is useful negative guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as run_command or git_remote_info, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an initialised repo, configured remote) must hold.

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