git_push

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specifics: force overwrites remote history and requires confirmed=True, tags behavior, and the return format. This is helpful context beyond annotations, giving agents important behavioral details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidelines, and return info. No redundancy or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides return format, remote divergence handling, and parameter behavior. With annotations and full schema coverage, the agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all 6 parameters (100%). The description adds behavioral meaning for force (overwrites history, requires confirmation) and tags (pushes tags), which goes beyond schema descriptions. It doesn't detail branch/remote/repo_path, but those are self-explanatory, so this is above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Push') and names the resource ('commits to a remote'), with a clear default ('origin'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing git_fetch/git_pull for integration, clarifying this tool is for publishing.

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 explicitly states when to use ('publish local commits', 'push tags for releases') and when not to ('Does NOT integrate upstream work'), and names alternatives ('use git_fetch or git_pull first'). Also notes force requires confirmation, providing clear contextual guidance.

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