Unprotect branch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the requirement to read current policy first and explicitly acknowledge the change. It labels it a 'destructive governance change,' reinforcing the annotation and giving the agent a safety protocol. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Remove protected-branch policy'), and the safety condition is appended concisely. Perfectly scoped.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: the destructive nature, the prerequisite read, and the acknowledgment requirement. It doesn't detail irreversibility or downstream effects, but these are less critical for a straightforward unprotect operation.

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 only 33% (only 'project' is described). The description does not explain the 'name' or 'acknowledge_protection_change' parameters. While the word 'acknowledging' hints at the boolean, it is not explicit parameter documentation. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Remove protected-branch policy' – a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('protected-branch policy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like protect_branch (opposite), update_protected_branch (modify), and get_protected_branch (read). The safety qualifier adds scope without confusing the core purpose.

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 provides explicit usage prerequisites: 'only after reading the current policy and explicitly acknowledging the destructive governance change.' This implies reading with get_protected_branch first and setting acknowledge_protection_change to true. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a destructive action.

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