rebase_preset_branch

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

With no annotations at all, the description does disclose some real behavior: a Kiln Pro entitlement gate, the automatic inline 3D stage, and automatic decimation of oversized meshes. However, it says nothing about the core mutation — whether rebase rewrites branch history, how conflicts are reported, or whether it is destructive — which is the highest-risk unknown for a rebase.

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?

Only one sentence serves the purpose; the rest is a pricing upsell and two near-duplicate paragraphs about the inline 3D stage that restate the same thing (panel in MCP Apps hosts, browser link otherwise). The actionable content is buried and diluted.

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?

A three-parameter history-rewriting operation with no annotations and no output schema needs far more: parameter meaning, conflict/failure behavior, and what state results. The description spends its budget on viewer features and Pro marketing 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% and there are three parameters (source_branch_id, onto_branch_id, operator), yet the description never mentions any of them. It neither explains the source/onto relationship nor the role of 'operator', so the agent must guess.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Rebase a decoration preset branch'), which is enough to distinguish it from rebase_design_branch and rebase_feature_branch in the sibling list. It does not explain what rebasing actually does to the branch, but the operation is identifiable.

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 when to use merge_decoration_preset_branches, cherry_pick_decoration_modification, or cloud_pull_preset_branch. No prerequisites, ordering constraints, or conflict conditions are stated.

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