Branch actions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'deletes' adds no new safety info beyond what's structured. It does clarify that the tool also supports read (get) and create operations, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permanence, permissions, or protected branch handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with zero filler. It's front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose. All words earn their place, making it an efficient example of minimalism.

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?

Despite having only 4 parameters, the tool supports four distinct actions with different parameter requirements. The description doesn't explain that create requires 'ref' and 'branch', delete requires 'branch', or delete_merged requires only 'project_id'. Without this action-parameter mapping, the agent may misinvoke the tool. No output schema further limits completeness.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (ref, branch, project_id), and the action enum is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, relying entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate for any gaps like which params apply to which action.

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 'Gets, creates or deletes branches' clearly states the core actions with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from read-only list tools like gitlab_list_branches, but it doesn't mention the 'delete_merged' action or explicitly differentiate from other branch-related tools, so it's clear but not fully comprehensive.

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 like gitlab_list_branches or gitlab_tag_action. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the schema and siblings.

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