Remove managed Git worktree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the dirty-worktree refusal, the retention of the branch, and the unregistration step. It does not describe error behavior or the exact meaning of 'unregister', but the behavior most relevant to avoiding destructive mistakes is present.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and then add necessary constraints. Every part adds information, and there is no repetition of the title or schema.

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 is simple and the output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The main missing piece is parameter semantics: 'project' is ambiguous. The behavioral constraints are well covered, but the single required input remains under-specified.

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?

The schema provides only 'project' as a required string with minLength 1 and no description. The tool description gives zero additional meaning for this parameter, so an agent cannot tell whether 'project' is a worktree path, a project name, a directory, or an identifier. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a clean runner-managed worktree and unregister it.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like git_worktree_create and from branch-deletion operations by adding scope and constraints ('runner-managed', 'branch is retained').

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 gives clear usage conditions: only clean worktrees can be removed, dirty worktrees are refused, and the branch is retained. This implies when-not-to-use, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when another tool like git_create_branch or manual git worktree removal should be preferred.

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