push_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does make one genuine, non-obvious disclosure — atomicity, meaning all files commit together or not at all — which is real value the schema does not provide. However, it omits required permissions, whether the branch must pre-exist, and whether the commit is pushed to the remote.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence with the atomicity guarantee front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy, nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 four-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by covering write semantics and return behavior. It gives one sentence about atomicity and says nothing about success/failure outcomes, the returned commit identifier, or branch requirements, leaving the 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 all four parameters (project_id, branch, commit_message, files) are already documented in the schema, including the nested file_path/content fields. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Commit multiple files') plus a scope qualifier ('single atomic commit'). It implicitly contrasts with the single-file sibling create_or_update_file, but never names it, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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...single atomic commit' implies when to reach for this tool (batched writes that must succeed together), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the large set of sibling commit/file tools.

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