repo_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals important constraints: approval ID validity, the restriction to origin, and the ownership requirement. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not discuss side effects of pushing (e.g., whether it is force-push, irreversible nature, or what happens on failure), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the next two crisply state the constraints. No sentence is wasted or redundant. It is an exemplary size for the information conveyed.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description adequately conveys the main context: this is a push operation restricted to origin with an approval requirement. It addresses the key prerequisites and limitations. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain approval_id or how this fits into the broader workflow (e.g., after committing), which would make it fully comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions approval_id as a requirement but does not explain the meanings of remote, branch_name, or workspace_id beyond their skeletal names. The statement 'specified remote/branch' vaguely maps to remote and branch_name but lacks detail. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Push the current HEAD to the specified remote/branch.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repo_fetch, repo_checkout, and repo_commit, which perform different operations. The additional constraints about origin and approval_id further clarify its unique scope.

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 usage context: a valid approval_id is required, only pushing to origin (the fork) is allowed, and the fork must be under the configured GitHub username. It implicitly tells the agent when this tool can be used (after obtaining approval, to push to the fork) and when it cannot (to other remotes or unauthorized forks). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the top tier of guidance.

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