contentrain_branch_delete

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

The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and removes the branch along with unmerged commits, going beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies the protection of the contentrain branch, providing full disclosure of behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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 destructive deletion tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, the resource type, and the consequences. It could mention what happens if the branch does not exist or the confirm flag is false, but the essential context is present.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond the schema, only reinforcing that 'branch' must be a cr/* branch. It does not introduce new details about parameters.

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 ('delete'), the specific resource ('pending contentrain (cr/*) branch'), and the context (branches not to be merged, e.g., from failed operations or superseded drafts). It also adds the restriction that only cr/* branches can be deleted, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 scenarios for using this tool (branches left by failed operations or superseded drafts) and states a clear constraint (only cr/* branches, contentrain branch is protected). While it does not name alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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