Push local changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the draft-only scope, YAML validation gating, force override behavior, the drift check in dry run and its cs_login prerequisite, and the confirm: true requirement. These are real operational traits, not restatements of the name.

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-loads the core action and the publish distinction, then layers on validation, drift, and confirm behavior. It is dense but each sentence carries operational content; it runs slightly long for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting on mutation semantics, gating, and side effects, and hints at dry-run output. It stops short of describing the full result payload, but no critical calling information 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's notes on force (override validation/conflict) and confirm (dry run without it) largely mirror the schema text rather than adding new syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (push/send up) and resource (local file changes into the agent's draft), and enumerates the artifact types covered (topics, knowledge files, flows, connection references). It explicitly distinguishes itself from cs_publish as the separate next step.

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?

Gives the natural-language triggers an agent will encounter ('upload', 'send my changes up', 'sync my edits') and names the alternative cs_publish with the condition that selects it. Zero inference required to route between push and publish.

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