rebase_feature_branch

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose a real side effect: the tool opens an inline 3D stage, decimates oversized meshes, and attaches a browser link on hosted sessions. That is genuine behavioral context. However, it never states what rebase does to branch history, how conflicts are surfaced, or that it rewrites commits — the core behavioral facts for this operation are absent.

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 core sentence is front-loaded, but it is followed by a large block of tier/upsell boilerplate and an INLINE 3D STAGE section that is mostly marketing. Much of this bulk does not earn its place for an agent deciding how to invoke a rebase.

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?

Three parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema means the description carries the full burden, and it does not deliver: parameter meanings, conflict behavior, and the result shape are all missing while space is spent on upgrade messaging.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters, yet the description never explains source_branch_id versus onto_branch_id, nor what the undocumented 'operator' parameter does. The 'onto' target is not mentioned at all, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Rebase a feature branch' gives a specific verb and resource that an agent can act on. It does not distinguish itself from the obvious siblings rebase_design_branch, rebase_preset_branch, or merge_feature_branches, so the agent must infer which branch type applies from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to rebase versus merge, no mention of preconditions (clean working state, conflict handling), and no reference to alternatives such as merge_feature_branches or detect_feature_merge_conflicts. The only 'guidance' present is a paywall notice.

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