rebase_design_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two real facts: the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement and a side effect (opening an interactive 3D stage, with automatic mesh decimation). However, for a rebase — an operation that rewrites branch history and can produce conflicts — it says nothing about what happens on conflict, whether the source branch's prior head is recoverable, or what the tool returns on failure.

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 front-loaded sentence is good, but the INLINE 3D STAGE paragraph restates the stage behavior already given in sentence one, and a three-line pricing/upgrade block sits mid-description. Roughly half the text is marketing repetition rather than operational information.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation of branch history, the agent still lacks conflict behavior, recoverability, return shape, and any parameter documentation. The description spends its remaining space on the upsell and the stage, so the operationally important gaps go unfilled.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Rebase ... onto another' weakly implies the source/onto pairing, but the third parameter, 'operator', is never mentioned and none of the three parameters' formats or constraints are clarified.

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 — rebase a design branch's divergent versions onto another (branch) — which is recognizable as a history-replay operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like merge_design_branches, rebase_feature_branch, or source_merge_three_way, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone when rebase is preferred over merge.

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 versus merging, cherry-picking, or compare_branches, and no prerequisites beyond a paywall notice. The only conditional content ('Kiln Pro would preserve this version so you can branch, restyle, compare outcomes') is an upsell, not invocation guidance.

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