Stage a finished job's changes into the main checkout with a squash merge and no commit; conflicts are reported without altering files, or discard the job's worktree and branch.
Stage a finished job's changes in the main checkout (git merge --squash, no commit).
Conflicts are reported and nothing changes. discard=true drops the job's worktree and branch instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| discard | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that conflicts are reported with no partial change (atomicity), that no commit is created, and that discard=true destroys the job's worktree and branch. It stops short of covering permissions or whether a successful apply can be repeated safely.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and the git primitive, then the failure mode, then the destructive alternative. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, the no-op-on-conflict guarantee, and the destructive discard path. Only the shape of what gets reported on conflict is left unstated, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter by explaining exactly what discard=true does (drops the worktree and branch) rather than leaving a bare boolean. job_id's meaning is only inferable from "a finished job's changes," which is a minor remaining gap.
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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair ("Stage a finished job's changes in the main checkout") and pins down the mechanism with "git merge --squash, no commit." It does not explicitly name a sibling like vibe_result or vibe_wait, but "finished job" implicitly frames the ordering relative to those tools.
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?
"A finished job's" signals the precondition that the job must have completed, which implies when this tool is appropriate. The discard branch is described as an alternative behavior, but neither branch states when an agent should choose apply versus simply reading the result with vibe_result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.