sassy_ghq_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses atomicity ('atomically') and the create/update semantics, and it mentions using the Git Data API to avoid SHA and ETag issues. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, prerequisites, or response behavior, leaving some gaps for a mutation 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'THE daily-driver tool' and 'no SHA bugs, no ETag nonsense' add personality and context but flirt with business jargon. Overall, every sentence contributes to understanding, and the structure is easy to scan.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter format. It lacks explicit caveats about error handling or branch conflicts, but for a straightforward atomic push, it is largely complete. The absence of annotation details is offset by the description's explicit focus.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides crucial detail for the 'files' parameter, specifying the exact JSON array format with path and content objects. While other parameters (owner, repo, branch, message) are not explicitly described, their names are self-explanatory, and the description addresses the one non-obvious parameter.

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 states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Push files atomically (create or update).' The scope is clear (files to a repository), and the tool name 'ghq_push' reinforces its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sassy_ghq_pr and sassy_ghq_get by clearly indicating a file push operation.

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 'THE daily-driver tool' implies this is the primary tool for pushing files, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'for pull requests, use sassy_ghq_pr instead'). The guidance is more implied than explicit.

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