Update protected branch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: false but destructiveHint: false, so the description adds value by disclosing the need to read first and the mandatory acknowledgment and unprotect rule. This goes beyond the default annotations, though it doesn't describe all mutation effects (e.g., default field behavior). It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the critical prerequisite. Every sentence provides essential guidance without fluff.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with low schema coverage and is a mutation. The description covers the most critical usage constraints (read-first, acknowledgment, unprotect rule) but omits details about how other parameters behave (e.g., merging/pushing rules). Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but parameter semantics are incomplete. A bit more detail would be warranted for this complexity.

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 13%, with only 'project' having a description. The description highlights two key parameters (acknowledge_protection_change and allowed_to_unprotect) by referencing them as required, but it does not explain the semantics of other parameters like allowed_to_push, allow_force_push, etc. It partially compensates for low coverage but leaves gaps.

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 action: 'Update protected-branch policy' and specifies it's for existing protected branches, distinguishing it from create/protect and unprotect siblings. The scope and prerequisite (reading current policy) add clarity.

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 instructs to use only after reading the current policy and requires an explicit acknowledgment and an unprotect rule. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it implies when this is appropriate versus protect/unprotect. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.

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