git_push

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

The description reveals that the tool pushes from main to origin/main, requires a commit message, and resets review status after each attempt. However, it does not specify whether it also commits, error conditions, or output details. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but leaves gaps.

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?

The description is structured with a clear purpose line, followed by important usage notes. It is not overly verbose and each part serves a function, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting the exact git command string.

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?

The tool description explains the prerequisite workflow and mentions handling merge URLs, but lacks details on output/return values and error handling. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for an agent.

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?

The single 'message' parameter is well-documented in the schema, and the description reiterates the requirement for an English commit message with example. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Execute git push command from "main" to "origin/main"'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_add and git_pull by naming the operation and context.

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 explicitly requires calling get_pending_changes first and provides step-by-step usage. While it does not discuss when not to use this tool or compare alternatives, the guideline is clear and actionable.

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