delete_branchDelete a Git branch in Azure DevOps only when it still points to the specified commit, preventing accidental removal of updated branches.
Delete a branch only if it still points at the exact expected commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to perform the mutation. | |
| project | No | ||
| branchName | Yes | ||
| repositoryId | Yes | ||
| expectedObjectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conditional nature but omits the confirm parameter requirement, the outcome when the branch does not match the expected commit, and any permission or side-effect details. As a destructive mutation, more disclosure is expected.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and condition. No wasted words, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 5-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and low schema coverage, this description is insufficient. It lacks return behavior, failure semantics, confirmation requirement, and prerequisite details, leaving critical information missing for correct invocation.
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 only 20% (only confirm has a description). The tool description does not explain repositoryId, branchName, or expectedObjectId beyond the phrase 'expected commit'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.
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 states the verb (delete), resource (branch), and a distinguishing condition (only if it still points at the exact expected commit). This differentiates it from create_branch and other branch-related operations.
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 when to use (when safe, conditional deletion is needed) and provides a clear context for the operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition gives enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.