cloud_retire_remote_branch

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

With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral load and delivers the one key fact: retirement preserves records for audit, i.e. it is a non-destructive state change rather than a deletion. But it omits permissions/auth requirements, reversibility, and effects on linked designs, and the 'Requires Kiln Pro' upsell block ambiguously implies a licensing gate without confirming one.

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 useful content is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good, but it is followed by an entire tier-comparison paragraph and an upgrade URL that are irrelevant to invoking this tool and actively distract the agent.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the identifier relationships and post-retirement state. Instead it spends its remaining budget on an unrelated sales pitch, leaving the agent unable to tell what retirement does to dependents or whether the action is reversible.

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 only 33% – only 'remote' has any note (a bare default value) while design_id and branch_id are completely undocumented. The description adds nothing about what these identifiers refer to or how they interact, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Mark a remote branch retired') and differentiates it from the many local-branch siblings (retire_design_branch, retire_feature_branch) by specifying 'remote'. However, the clarity is immediately diluted by three lines of unrelated tier/marketing text about printer calibration and textures that have nothing to do with branch retirement.

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?

No guidance on when to retire a remote branch versus deleting it, versus using cloud_list_remote_branches or cloud_push_branch to inspect/manage it. The only context is '(preserves records for audit)', which hints at a soft-delete but never contrasts it with a hard delete alternative.

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