push_config

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

The description details the actions performed: validates, places in directory, commits, and pushes. This is informative given no annotations are provided. However, it omits potential side effects like overwriting or prerequisites.

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 sentence without unnecessary words, effectively conveying the core action. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 parameters, required fields, many sibling tools) and lack of parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention output schema or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (config_path, source_name, category, create_branch, force). The agent gets no help understanding what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 pushes a config to a registered config source repository, with steps like validation and commit. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like sync_config or submit_config, which may also involve pushing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sync_config, fetch_config, or submit_config. The description implies usage for pushing configs but lacks context for decision-making.

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