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

The description states 'Deletes a development branch,' which directly implies a destructive action, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a clear contradiction. Additionally, the description provides no context about irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions.

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 two sentences: one clear main purpose and one focused bulk-support note. Every sentence earns its place, and the key verb appears immediately.

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?

With only 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that contradict the described behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain success/error behavior, whether branch deletion is reversible, or how branch_ids interacts with the required branch_id parameter.

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 does clarify that branch_ids enables batched execution, but it does not explain branch_id semantics or the relationship between the required branch_id and the optional branch_ids field, leaving ambiguity about whether batch mode can omit the singular id.

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 begins with 'Deletes a development branch,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like supabase_create_branch, supabase_merge_branch, and supabase_reset_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?

The description implies usage through the word 'Deletes' and adds bulk execution guidance via 'accepts branch_ids for batched execution.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions such as 'use supabase_pause_project/restore_project for project-level operations.'

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