Add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious context — shared .git with no re-clone, and the guarantee that the canonical checkout stays on its default branch so resets never disturb in-flight work — but says nothing about what happens if the branch or path already exists, or any prerequisite.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the opening sentence restates the title and the remainder describes the worktree subsystem rather than this tool's action, so a meaningful share of the text does not earn its place for this specific tool.

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 12-parameter tool whose schema mixes flags belonging to add/remove/merge/sync/audit, the description never identifies which parameters this tool actually uses, never distinguishes it from the many sibling worktree tools, and gives no failure behavior. The existing output schema absolves it of explain return values, but the selection-side gaps remain.

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% and every parameter carries its own description (including op-specific ones like 'adopt' and 'strategy'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Add (rm_worktree)' and then pivots to the worktree family concept ('Manage git worktrees for concurrent multi-session development'). It conveys the domain and the worktree layout (<WORKTREE_ROOT>/<repo>/<branch>) but never states what the add operation itself creates, so the agent must infer its purpose from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a dense sibling set including rm_worktree_bulk_add, rm_worktree_remove, rm_worktree_sync, rm_worktree_merge and rm_worktree_list. An agent has nothing to route on.

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