push_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a write operation producing a single commit, but it does not mention file overwrite semantics, branch requirements, permissions, or failure behavior—material side effects for a repository-mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes directly to identifying the tool's action, scope, and commit behavior.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must provide enough operational context. It covers the core action but omits expected return behavior, error conditions, and side-effect details, leaving an agent under-informed for a write operation.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters and properties. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'multiple files' concept, which maps naturally to the files array.

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'), the target resource ('to a GitLab project'), and the key qualifier ('in a single commit'). This distinguishes it from single-file siblings like create_or_update_file without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'multiple files' implies when this tool should be used, and 'single commit' suggests the batching intent. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives exist, so the agent must infer the boundary against tools like create_or_update_file.

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