Push local changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so: it validates YAML and blocks on errors unless force, defaults to a dry run, blocks when portal drift overlaps local edits, notes cs_login caching is needed for the drift check, and requires confirm: true to modify a live environment. These are exactly the mutation-safety facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, then behavior, then the safety gate. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; it runs slightly long, with the 'This is the tool for...' routing sentence and the parenthetical CLI name both somewhat redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (cached cs_login), validation and blocking rules, dry-run default, the confirm gate, and the follow-up step (cs_publish). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 nonetheless adds real meaning by tying force to two distinct override conditions (validation errors and portal-vs-local conflicts) and confirming that confirm is what converts a dry run into a live change. It does not add anything for workspace, but that is already fully documented.

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 ('Send local file changes up into the agent's draft in Copilot Studio') and enumerates the artifact types (topics, knowledge files, flows, connection references). It also draws the boundary against cs_publish ('the separate step afterwards'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 maps user phrasings ('upload', 'send my changes up', 'sync my edits') to this tool and names the alternative step (cs_publish) for publishing. The direction of movement (only into the draft) is stated, implying cs_pull is the reverse counterpart.

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