airstrings_push

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it clarifies the destructiveHint by specifying server-only keys are left alone and nothing is deleted, discloses the protected-environment refusal, names the return payload (upserted and error counts, sections, failed keys), and notes changes are invisible until airstrings_publish. That is rich operational context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with write semantics, environment constraint, return shape, and sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information; there is no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields, covers the destructive/mutation behavior, the protected-env refusal, and the publish dependency. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 100% and the single section parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('Only push this section's CSV'). The description does not add syntax or format detail for the parameter beyond what the schema states, 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 (upload/upsert) and resource (local workspace CSVs to the active environment) and immediately defines the write semantics (overwrite server values, create missing sections). It distinguishes itself from siblings by name, contrasting with airstrings_strings_set, airstrings_publish, and airstrings_promote.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('after many airstrings_strings_set edits') and when-not ('for one key, strings_set with push=true is enough'). It also states the alternative path for protected environments ('push to staging, then a human promotes'), leaving nothing to inference.

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