git_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool pushes commits (a write operation), notes authentication via GITHUB_TOKEN, warns about force push, and specifies the return value. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting remote commits or failure scenarios.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, then a bullet list of options, and a return description. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 push tool, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return values. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., having a remote configured) or full authentication details, but the output schema is provided. Overall, it is adequate given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining all four parameters: branch (specific, defaults to current), set_upstream (track new branches), force (force push with caution), and remote (implied by default 'origin'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 'Push commits to remote' clearly states the verb (push) and resource (commits to remote). The tool name 'git_push' aligns perfectly, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_commit, git_create_branch, etc., which have different purposes.

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 includes usage notes like using GITHUB_TOKEN and a caution for force push, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., vs. git_pull or git_commit). The context is implied but not fully explicit.

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