retire_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 disclose real behavior: records are preserved (soft retire, not delete) and the branch name becomes reusable. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the operation is reversible or how it interacts with related releases, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 first line is tight and correctly front-loaded, but three of four lines are irrelevant marketing copy about Kiln Pro tiers and an upgrade URL that have nothing to do with invoking this tool. The majority of the text does not earn its place.

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 low-complexity single-parameter retire tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core behavior is covered. However, the missing parameter documentation and lack of any reversibility/auth context leave real gaps, and the space is wasted on upsell text rather than filling them.

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 the single required branch_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description gives no hint about the identifier's form or where to obtain it, so it 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 gives a specific verb+resource (mark a branch retired) plus two concrete effects: records are preserved and the name is freed. That is enough to identify the operation, though it does not differentiate from close siblings like retire_feature_branch or cloud_retire_remote_branch.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (archive_design, delete_design, retire_design_release). The remaining text is subscription upsell, not usage direction.

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