list_decoration_preset_branches

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 never states that this is a read-only listing, whether retired branches are excluded by default, or how results are ordered/paginated. The only behavioral claim is the vague entitlement line 'Requires Kiln Pro,' which is buried in marketing copy and not framed as a permission prerequisite.

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 purpose sentence is correctly front-loaded, but roughly three quarters of the text is promotional boilerplate and an upgrade URL that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The useful content is one line padded with sales copy.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain preset_id semantics and default retirement filtering. It omits both, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this call from neighboring branch/release/version listers.

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 50%: 'preset_id' has no schema description and the description never explains what identifier it expects, while 'include_retired' is only documented as 'Default: false.' The description does not compensate for the undocumented half of the parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'List the branches of a decoration preset.' The 'decoration preset' qualifier implicitly separates it from sibling list_design_branches / list_feature_branches, but no sibling is named and there is no scope detail (active vs retired, pagination) to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The remaining sentences are tier/upsell messaging ('Requires Kiln Pro. Upgrade: ...'), which tells the agent nothing about when to call this tool versus list_decoration_preset_versions, list_decoration_preset_releases, or cloud_list_remote_branches.

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