push_documents

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

With only destructiveHint=false as an annotation, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: unchanged files are skipped, remote-only documents are never deleted (consistent with destructiveHint=false), the push stops at the first file exceeding the threshold, and already-pushed files persist on partial failure. The 'relay warning verbatim' instruction is notable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences that front-load the core action and then progress logically: sync semantics → preview → threshold/limit behavior → warning relay. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics (except pattern), failure behavior, and hints at the result via the warning field. The only meaningful gaps are the pattern parameter and a fuller description of the return value.

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 — and it largely does: dry_run, overwrite, and allow_search_mode are all explained; project_id and source_directory are contextually implied. However, the pattern parameter (default '*.md') is never mentioned, leaving one of six parameters undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb + resource ('Upload a local folder's files into the project') with unambiguous directionality. The push/pull contrast with sibling pull_documents makes it instantly distinguishable, and the sync semantics (skip unchanged, never delete remote) further sharpen scope.

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 description gives concrete usage conditions: use dry_run=true to preview, overwrite=true for differing files, allow_search_mode=true to accept the threshold, and instructs relaying warnings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use states, so it stops short of a full 5.

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