land

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that apply is a 3-way application, leaves changes uncommitted, and leaves the tree untouched on conflict, while discard deletes the worktree. It could go further on irreversibility or permissions, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 three tight sentences with the core scope and action behavior front-loaded. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action semantics, conflict behavior, multi-job handling implied by 'one line per job,' and the relevant job statuses. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the comma-separated job format and action enum meanings. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Land or discard finished jobs') and scopes it to jobs that did not land, naming example statuses (PARTIAL, FAIL, CONFLICT). This clearly separates the tool from unrelated siblings such as reply, jobs, and delegate.

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?

It clearly implies when the tool applies: finished jobs that did not land, with statuses given as examples. It also explains the two actions enough to choose between them, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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