config_publish

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

Annotations already signal that this is a write operation that is not destructive; the description adds meaningful context by specifying that it will not force-push and requires a clean local baseline. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent understand the safety profile of the operation.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only essential qualifiers. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with annotations covering the read/write and destructive profile, the description adequately covers the operation, source, destination, and safety constraint. It does not describe failure behavior when the upstream has diverged, but that is a minor omission given the low complexity and available annotations.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description's reference to a 'configured Git upstream' makes clear that the target is preconfigured rather than passed as an argument, which is sufficient context.

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 ('push'), the object ('clean local Personal Agent Config baseline'), and the destination ('configured Git upstream'), with an explicit safety constraint ('without force-pushing'). It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like config_sync.

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 'clean local Personal Agent Config baseline' implies this tool should be used when the local configuration is clean and ready to publish, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over config_sync, config_status, or config_rollback. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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