Contract Testing: Delete Branch

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

The description claims 'Delete' which is a destructive, modifying action, but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction, misleading the agent about the tool's effects.

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 very brief (one sentence plus parameter list). It is concise but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., separating behavioral notes from parameter info).

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 contradiction in annotations and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide essential behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, permissions, side effects). For a delete operation, this is insufficient.

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% (both parameters documented). The description lists parameter names and types identically to the schema, adding no further semantics or usage details.

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 'Delete a branch from a pacticipant,' clearly specifying the action (delete) and the resource (branch from pacticipant). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'contract-testing_delete_pacticipant' by resource type, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of preconditions or exclusions. The description simply states the action without context.

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