cleanup_worktree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait—the branch survives the removal—which is real value. But it omits whether the worktree directory deletion is irreversible, what happens to untracked/uncommitted files implicitly covered by "clean", and what error surfaces when preconditions fail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the preconditions and the branch-retention guarantee are packed efficiently into one clause structure. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 one-param tool with no output schema the description covers the core action and the key side effect, but leaves the ambiguous parameter and the failure/dirty-worktree behavior unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to predict outcomes confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter is named only "agent", which is ambiguous on a worktree-management tool—agent name, ID, or worktree owner? The description provides no clarification of what this identifier refers to or its accepted format, so the ambiguity is unresolved anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove ... managed worktree") qualified by two preconditions (inactive, clean) and one postcondition (branch retained). That is enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool affects. No sibling tool is named, but the sibling list contains nothing worktree-related, so differentiation is largely moot.

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 adjectives "inactive" and "clean" imply the preconditions under which the tool applies, but the description never says so explicitly, nor what to do instead when a worktree is active or dirty. An agent must infer when-not-to-use it from the adjectives alone.

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