push_config

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It outlines the steps (validate, place in category directory, commit, push) but does not mention side effects like branch creation, overwriting, required permissions, or failure modes. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is very concise, though it could benefit from slight elaboration on parameters without losing efficiency.

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 has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a presumably important output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks return value information, error conditions, and details about the process, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'category directory' aligning with the category parameter and 'commits' implying branch usage, but it fails to explicitly describe any of the five parameters (config_path, source_name, category, create_branch, force) or their semantics.

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 a config'), target ('registered config source repository'), and steps ('Validates, places in category directory, commits, and pushes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate_config' and 'sync_config' by including the commit and push 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_config, validate_config, or sync_config. It lacks any conditional or exclusionary context to help an agent decide between siblings.

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