Contract Testing: Delete Branch

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the key behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context about side effects (e.g., impact on associated versions or deployments), authorization needs, or reversibility. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the action, plus a toolset label and parameter list. No extraneous words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity of a delete operation and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks mention of whether deletion is irreversible or if it cascades to related entities, but for a basic tool with no output schema, the information provided is sufficient for correct 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?

Both parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic details (e.g., format constraints, relationships between parameters). The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not enhance schema meaning.

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), the resource (branch), and the context (pacticipant). It uses a specific verb and noun, making it easy to understand what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branch or list_branches.

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 (e.g., when to delete a branch vs. archiving or marking inactive). It does not mention prerequisites, caveats, or conditions for use. The 'Toolset' label gives minimal context but is not sufficient for decision-making.

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