Gitea: Delete branch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. Beyond that the description only adds the default-branch restriction; it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion cascades to open pull requests, or what errors occur when the branch is protected or already gone. For a destructive operation the added context is thin.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint; nothing is padded. The leading "[UNIFIED]" token is pure noise and the block could have spent one more clause on the parameters instead.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions and only a destructive annotation, the definition omits too much for a mutation tool: no success/failure semantics, no note on protected branches, and no parameter format guidance. The default-branch constraint is the one genuinely useful detail provided.

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% across all four required parameters (site, owner, repo, branch), and the description does not mention any of them. An agent must guess the expected format of site and whether owner/repo accept slugs, paths, or IDs. The parameter names are largely self-evident, which prevents a 1, but nothing compensates for the documentation gap.

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 ("Delete a branch from a Gitea repository") plus the scope of the repository, which separates it from delete_file, delete_tag and delete_repository siblings. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no meaning, but the core sentence 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?

The only guidance is an exclusion: "Cannot delete default branch." There is no statement of when to reach for this versus gitea_get_branch or gitea_create_branch, and no preconditions such as required permissions or whether unmerged branches are allowed. Implied usage is clear from the name, but no positive routing guidance is given.

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