pleach_merge

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the side-effectful nature ('SIDE-EFFECTFUL'), background execution, merge-base materialization, and the default read-only behavior. This gives the agent essential safety and behavioral context 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?

Two dense, information-rich sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded warning and clear action guidance.

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?

While it covers side effects, background dispatch, read-only default, and preconditions, it omits expectations for the agent's output or completion status. For a complex, side-effectful tool with no output schema, a bit more detail on the result or failure modes would round it out.

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 covers only cwd and allow_writes; branch_a and branch_b lack descriptions. The description mentions 'two branches' but does not clarify their roles or ordering, leaving ambiguity. It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema for the required parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: materialize a merge base and dispatch a background agent to reconcile two branches. It distinguishes from sibling pleach_merge_plan by explicitly positioning this as the execution step after planning, with a different scope and side-effect profile.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use pleach_merge_plan first and confirm with the user before calling, providing clear sequencing and an alternative. It also specifies the read-only default unless allow_writes is set, clarifying when to enable writes.

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