git_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key limitations: no force push, no ref deletion, and the tags-mode switch. However, it says nothing about network/credential requirements, non-fast-forward rejection, or that the operation mutates a remote (an irreversible side effect), which is exactly the context an agent needs before calling a push.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and default, then constraints, then the tags special case. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin: it omits remote-selection semantics, upstream tracking behavior, and failure conditions. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the pre-call and side-effect picture is incomplete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only partially: it explains 'tags' and the default for 'branch' (via 'default: current'). Nothing addresses 'repo', 'remote', or 'set_upstream', leaving three parameters with no semantic guidance anywhere.

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+resource ('Push a branch ... to a remote') and specifies the default branch behavior, which an agent can act on directly. No sibling performs pushes, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated; the description also adds scope limits (no force push, no ref deletion) that sharpen the picture.

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 one conditional routing rule ('tags=true pushes tags instead of a branch') and a negative constraint (force pushes and ref deletion unsupported), but never says when to prefer this over workflows it depends on (git_commit, git_add, git_branch_create) or what prerequisite state is required. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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