push_files

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

The description only restates the action, adding little beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose whether files are overwritten, what happens to existing commits, or if branch creation is required. The destructiveHint already signals mutation, but the description offers limited additional insight.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose. However, for a mutation tool that creates commits, more details about behavior (e.g., commit creation, branch handling) would improve completeness. Currently adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('multiple files'), and the context ('single commit'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_or_update_file (single file) and create_branch (branch).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use information. With siblings like create_or_update_file for single files, explicit usage context would help agents choose correctly.

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