ddflow_merge

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a critical trait: it performs the merge 'without ever switching its branch,' which is a non-obvious behavior. It also specifies 'from the primary checkout,' indicating the working context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a mutation operation or mention side effects like refusal on dirty worktree (though that is covered by the allow_dirty parameter). The disclosure of the non-switching guarantee is significant and adds value beyond the schema.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that places the action and resource first, then states the operational constraint. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is both concise and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the core action and a key behavioral guarantee, but it omits broader context such as error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., existence of the item), or what happens on merge conflicts. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent might need more detail about potential failures or the merge's impact. However, given the simplicity of the operation and that parameters are well-described, the description is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 100%, with all four parameters (id, keep, message, allow_dirty) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or elaboration beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline for high coverage, this is a 3. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 description states a specific action (merge), a resource (an item's branch), a target (base branch), and a key constraint (without switching branches). This clearly differentiates it from any potential sibling merge tools by specifying the operational context (primary checkout) and the non-switching behavior. It is a precise verb+resource+constraint statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not reference sibling tools or provide context on selection criteria. The only hint is 'from the primary checkout,' which is a location detail, not usage guidance. An agent would have to infer from the name alone when merging is appropriate.

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