merge_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the branch is marked as merged and new thoughts are added. It lists three strategies. However, it does not specify whether the branch is closed automatically, nor how conflicts are handled, leaving minor gaps.

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 plus a concise list of strategies. The main action is front-loaded. No unnecessary words 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?

Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core behavior, when to use, and strategy options. It could mention the return value (a new thought on main) but is not required.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining each strategy in context ('conclusion_only — adds only the branch conclusion'), which is beyond the schema's simple enum descriptions.

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 verb 'merge' and the resource 'branch', and specifies the outcome: 'back into the main thread as a new thought on main.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'close_branch' by being the dedicated merge operation.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use after a branch has produced useful findings you want on the main thread.' It implies when not to use (e.g., no useful findings), but does not name alternatives like 'close_branch' or 'get_branch'.

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