retire_feature_branch

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose two important behavioral traits: retiring preserves records and frees the branch name, and it requires Kiln Pro. However, it omits reversibility, what happens to branch history/references, and any authorization details beyond the Pro requirement.

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 and concise, but the remaining paragraphs are unrelated pricing-marketing text about calibration, mid-print edits, textures, and upgrades. Those sentences do not help an agent call this retirement tool and dilute the useful content.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should cover branch identification, expected effect, and reversibility. It mentions the effect but leaves the required branch_id semantics and recovery behavior unexplained while spending space on unrelated upsell.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for branch_id, so the description must explain the parameter. It only says "a branch" and gives no guidance on the identifier's format or where to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Retire a branch — preserves records, frees the name." It clarifies the effect versus deletion, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling retirement tools such as retire_design_branch or retire_feature_release.

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?

The description gives the effect of retiring a branch but never states when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The later pricing text is unrelated to choosing this tool.

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