contentrain_branch_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the destructive nature by stating the branch and its unmerged commits are removed. It also adds the constraint that only cr/* branches can be deleted. No extra details on permissions or recovery, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action and examples, imposing a constraint, and noting destructiveness. No redundant or vague phrases. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with two simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive nature, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage scenarios, constraints, and behavior. It could mention recovery impossibility or use cases like cleaning up, but the current content is mostly complete.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it contextualizes the branch parameter as a pending cr/* branch and implies confirm must be true, but this largely mirrors the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (delete), the resource (pending contentrain cr/* branch), and provides examples of when it's appropriate. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the branch type constraint and that the main branch is protected, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions when to use this tool (delete pending branches that won't be merged, e.g., failed operations or superseded drafts) and the constraint that only cr/* branches are eligible. It doesn't name alternative tools directly but implies that merging or other operations belong elsewhere, which is clear in context.

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