ddflow_version_cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains side effects (creates branches, merges, tags), the PR flow that defers tagging to ddflow_pr_sync, and a distinctive failure mode (exit 2 = nothing to release). It does not mention required permissions or the exact exit codes for other failures, but the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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?

Three dense clauses cover mode, flow, and edge case with zero filler, and the 'Exit 2' sentinel is front-loaded at the end for quick scanning. Every sentence earns 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 versioning mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and six optional parameters, the description covers the core behavior but omits important context like safety (does it force-push?), the state of the base branch, and how a caller distinguishes success from partial failures beyond exit 2. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% and each parameter already has a precise description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the rich schema documentation.

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 ('Tag the next version') and lays out two distinct modes (trunk vs gitflow) with concrete steps. However, it does not directly contrast with the sibling 'ddflow_release', which likely also creates releases, so the agent may have to open both schemas to disambiguate.

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?

Usage context is implied by the mode descriptions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites (e.g., clean working tree, remote availability). The exit 2 note hints at a no-op case, which is a small usage signal, but overall the guidance is thin.

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