contentrain_merge

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

The description discloses destructive behavior ('prunes the merged branch'), but the annotations mark destructiveHint as false, creating a contradiction. Additionally, it does not mention side effects like data loss or the need for permissions beyond the contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds essential detail without redundancy. No superfluous words.

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 description explains the merge process well but lacks mention of return values (since no output schema), prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repo), and error scenarios. For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, more context on outcome is needed.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the resolution logic between 'branch' and 'model' parameters and emphasizing 'confirm' must be true. This provides clarity beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 'merge' and specific resource 'review-mode branch into contentrain' with a detailed breakdown of operations (merge, update-ref, sync, prune). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like contentrain_branch_delete and contentrain_submit by specifying it's a local git operation.

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 explains when to use the tool (merging review-mode branches) and how to target branches either by exact name or by model with optional locale/latest. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like contentrain_submit.

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