delete_branch_restriction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Confirmation of deletion' as a return, which hints at output, but lacks critical details: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), permission requirements, error conditions, or side effects. For a deletion tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second and third explain parameters, and the fourth describes output. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (a deletion operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameters well and hints at output, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, errors, or confirmation format. For a destructive tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder safe agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: repo_slug is documented as 'Repository slug' and restriction_id is explained with 'from list_branch_restrictions', clarifying its source. This goes beyond the bare schema (which only has titles) and provides practical guidance, though it could detail formats or constraints further.

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') and resource ('a branch restriction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete_group_permission or delete_repository, which would require mentioning the specific domain (branch management in version control).

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 implies usage by referencing 'restriction_id (from list_branch_restrictions)', suggesting this tool should be used after listing restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update operations) or provide context about prerequisites beyond the ID reference.

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