codemerge_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses important behavioral details: restarting deletes prior file claims, restarting a live session is an error, and repo_root defaults to cwd. This goes well beyond the bare 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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Each item adds necessary semantic value, and the allow_restart explanation is detailed but directly relevant to avoiding destructive misuse.

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 thoroughly covers parameters, side effects, and error conditions for a tool with an output schema already present. The only minor gap is that it does not state what happens when session_id already exists and allow_restart is false, leaving one edge case ambiguous.

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 description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: session_id uniqueness, branch meaning, description purpose, base_commit definition, repo_root default, and the nuanced allow_restart behavior. This is essential meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a new merge session for a branch.' It clearly identifies the tool's lifecycle role and distinguishes it from sibling tools like codemerge_status, codemerge_merge, and codemerge_finish by focusing on session creation.

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 implies usage by the phrase 'Start a new merge session' and gives detailed restart semantics, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.

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