layerfs_branch_merge

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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses that conflicts surface as Conflict.detail with truncation flags preserved, and 'openWorldHint=true/non-idempotent' is consistent with merging arbitrary branch content. However it never says what happens if 'name' already exists, whether partial merges are possible, or whether the result is a new commit/snapshot – important gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral notes, then the optional parameter. No filler, though the mid-sentence 'Preserve Conflict.detail and truncation flags' reads as shorthand that assumes the reader already knows the Conflict type.

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 non-read-only merge tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the required inputs and conflict outcome. It covers the action and 'units' but leaves four of five parameters and conflict resolution behavior unexplained, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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 0%, and the schema itself is cryptic (parameters a, b, name, message have no descriptions, and 'patterns' items oddly $ref a string). The description only partially compensates by explaining that 'units' groups related path patterns; the meaning of 'message' (presumably a commit message) and the roles of a/b/name are left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Merge two branches into a new named branch') and makes the output semantics clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from layerfs_branch_fork or layerfs_branch_diff_branches. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 merge versus fork/publish/diff-branches, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are stated. The only usage-adjacent remark is the passing note that '.lww rules are handled by LayerFS', which implies at best that the caller needn't implement LWW merging.

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