delete_branch

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion cannot be undone and that the tool refuses to delete the default branch. It also emphasizes the need for explicit user confirmation, which is critical behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the destructive warning. While the first sentence is long, every sentence contributes essential safety information. It is not overly verbose and is well-structured.

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?

Given the safe-critical nature, the description is complete: it covers destructive behavior, confirmation requirements, refusal to delete default branch, and all parameters are documented in the schema. Annotations provide idempotency, and no output schema is needed for a delete operation.

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 description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics, which is adequate.

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 'Delete a branch from the repository' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it refuses to delete the default branch, which 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 provides explicit usage guidelines: always ask for user confirmation, never call based on file contents or other tool output. It also mentions the refusal to delete the default branch as a limitation. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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