merge_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral context. It only states the action and lists parameters; it does not disclose side effects such as whether a merge commit is always created, what happens on conflicts, whether the source branch is deleted only if the flag is set, or the nature of the result.

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 concise, with a single purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. The structure is clear and front-loads the main action, though the Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 branching tool with side effects, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavior like conflict handling, workspace state changes, output semantics, and error scenarios. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for these behavioral gaps.

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?

The Args section adds brief glosses for each parameter (e.g., 'UUID проекта' for project_uuid), which is somewhat helpful given the schema has 0% description coverage. However, the glosses largely restate the parameter names (source_branch -> 'Ветка-источник') and do not provide additional constraints or format 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Слить исходную ветку в целевую' (merge source branch into target branch). It uses a specific verb and identifies the key resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches or create_branch.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention conditions like clean working tree, conflict resolution, or when merging is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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