push-files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states the action ('push') but doesn't disclose whether this requires write permissions, how conflicts are handled, if it overwrites existing files, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The 'single commit' detail is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero wasted words. Every element ('push multiple files', 'GitHub repository', 'single commit') earns its place by specifying scope and constraint efficiently.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects, error handling), usage guidance versus siblings, and output expectations. The 100% schema coverage helps parameters but doesn't compensate for missing operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'files' are processed together in one commit. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate for any gaps (none exist here).

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 action ('push multiple files') and target ('to a GitHub repository') with the specific constraint 'in a single commit'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-or-update-file' (single file) and 'list-commits' (read-only), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all write operations like 'create-branch' or 'merge-pull-request'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-or-update-file' (which handles single files) or other repository modification tools. The description implies batch file operations but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication, repository access) or exclusions (e.g., not for deleting files).

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