annotate_design_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement — but says nothing about whether the annotation overwrites an existing one, who may set it, or what happens on failure. The remainder is promotional copy rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, which is correct. The two following sentences are subscription marketing and an upsell URL that consume most of the description's length without helping an agent invoke the tool.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition should cover permissions, overwrite behavior, and branch scoping. It covers none of these, and the space is spent on pricing copy instead.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Human-readable purpose string' loosely clarifies the annotation parameter, but branch_id is never explained (which branch namespace? ID format? design vs feature branch?) and the schema offers only bare titles.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: setting a human-readable purpose string on a branch. However, it never distinguishes 'branch' from the sibling tools annotate_feature_branch and annotate_decoration_preset_branch, so an agent cannot tell which branch type this applies to without inspecting the name.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites beyond a paywall note, and no mention of the near-identical annotation tools for feature and decoration-preset branches. The agent is left to infer routing entirely from the tool name.

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