taskops_merge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the merge strategy (--no-ff), the worktree context, batch stop/continue semantics, conflict handling ('aborts clean'), and the guarantee about main. It does not cover every edge case (e.g., what happens if a card is not DONE), but the key behaviors are transparently disclosed.

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 three dense sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core action, then covers batch behavior, safety, and usage restriction. No filler words or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description plus detailed schema provide sufficient context. It explains batch failure handling, conflict behavior, who should call it, and the safety invariant. The schema descriptions fill in parameter-level detail. The only minor gap is the exact return structure, but 'reports per card' gives a usable expectation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by mapping parameters to usage patterns: 'task= one, tasks=[…] those in order, done=true every card waiting under MERGE'. This gives the agent concrete guidance on how to combine parameters. Additionally, schema descriptions themselves are unusually rich (e.g., actor explains sub-agent identity scenarios), so the overall parameter semantics are strong.

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 verb and resource: 'Integrate DONE cards into their milestone branch', and adds specificity with '--no-ff, in the integration worktree'. This distinguishes it from sibling taskops tools which mostly manage cards, boards, or activities, whereas this tool integrates completed cards.

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?

Explicitly states 'Orchestrator only', defining who should invoke it. It also explains when to use it ('every card waiting under MERGE') and describes the batch processing behavior ('stops at the first failure, reports per card, and continues on a re-run') which tells the agent how to handle partial failures. The safety note 'main is never touched' gives an important usage boundary.

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