git_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does so by highlighting the 'security.require_confirmation' setting and the need for explicit confirmation, which is a critical behavioral aspect. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting remote history if force is used, though the schema covers that. Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only necessary behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple git operation with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the key confirmation behavior and the core purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning that the push operation is a mutation of the remote, but since this is standard and the output schema exists, the current level is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters (force, branch, remote, confirm) clearly. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Push commits to a remote repository.' This uses a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_pull (pull) and git_commit (local commit). The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context about when confirmation is required, including the default behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious and the confirmation guidance helps the agent decide when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning that this is for sending local commits to a remote, which is implied.

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