spawn_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It covers key behaviors: every push rebuilds the live room, conflict handling, team-mode rebase semantics, and the fact that a successful push only proves spec parsing, not visual correctness. It also reveals that untextured/plain results imply a missing skill. This is rich and honest about consequences.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries operational value, from the core action to conflict handling and success caveats. It is well-structured, front-loading the main purpose before diving into edge cases and troubleshooting, making it appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (conflict resolution, team mode) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains success criteria, failure modes, and follow-up actions, leaving little ambiguity for an agent to misuse the tool. The inclusion of concrete skill IDs for visual issues is a strong bonus.

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 67% (force and projectDir have descriptions; dryRun does not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving dryRun entirely unexplained. It does not clarify when to use force or how projectDir is resolved. While the schema covers two params, the missing dryRun and lack of any parameter hints make this below the baseline.

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 as 'Compile + push the project live', specifying both the action (compile and push) and the resource (project/live room). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing spawn_latest, spawn_play_screenshot, and spawn_skill for specific follow-up actions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: handles 409 conflicts by calling spawn_latest, then merging .theirs and pushing again. It also explains team-mode behavior (serialized, rebased) and advises checking spawn_play_screenshot before considering work done, plus points to spawn_skill for visual issues. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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