clasp_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It fails to mention that pushing overwrites remote files, may require confirmation unless 'force' is set, or can operate in watch mode. No side effects, auth needs, or failure modes are described.

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 a single, short sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and potential destructive behavior, making it a case of terseness rather than appropriate conciseness.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter effects, the push workflow, or what happens on success/failure, leaving the agent without essential 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (force, watch, rootDir), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already 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 action ('push') and resource ('changes to Google Apps Script'), making its primary purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clasp_pull or clasp_deploy, though the name 'push' inherently contrasts with 'pull'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clasp_pull (download changes) or clasp_deploy (deploy a project). There are no context cues, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites like authentication.

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