push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals authentication needs, parameter dependencies (e.g., version required when mode is 'version'), and the publish-before-push ordering. However, it does not explicitly mention potential side effects like overwriting existing deployments or whether deploys are reversible. This is above average but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy for an agent to scan. It includes all necessary detail without unnecessary fluff, striking an ideal balance between completeness and brevity.

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 7-parameter complexity and zero schema descriptions, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers authentication, sequencing with publish, all parameter semantics, and environment targets. Since there is an output schema, not describing return values is appropriate. This description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the description must fully compensate. It does so with a detailed Args section explaining every parameter: project, token, api_key, environment, mode, version, and branch. It also adds conditional logic (e.g., 'Required when mode is version') that goes beyond the schema, providing complete semantic clarity.

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 tool's function: 'Push/deploy a Symbols project to a specific environment.' The verb is specific, the resource is identified, and the scope is defined with examples (production, staging, dev). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `publish` tool by stating that publish sets the live version first, then push deploys it.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call publish first to set the live version, then push to deploy.' It also gives clear authentication requirements, stating 'provide either token or api_key.' This directly informs when and how to use the tool, and the sequencing with publish helps avoid misuse.

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