github_repos_delete_deployment_branch_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, the need for specific permissions (e.g., admin or write access to the repository), potential impact on deployments, or required preconditions (e.g., policy existence). This lack of transparency could lead to misuse or unexpected failures.

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 a single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding verbosity, such as including the context of deletion or required identifiers. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe what happens on success (e.g., confirmation or void response), failure modes (e.g., policy not found), or side effects (e.g., removal of associated protection rules). An agent needs more context to handle errors and confirm successful execution.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, but those descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'environment_name', 'branch_policy_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score 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 explicitly states 'Delete a deployment branch policy', clearly indicating a verb ('Delete') and a resource ('deployment branch policy'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or list, which have different verbs. However, it lacks additional context such as the scope (e.g., repository-level) or any qualifying details that would further clarify the action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the policy must exist), nor does it differentiate use cases from related tools like 'update' or 'get'. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb and resource, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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