Git worktree remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description need not restate that. But it adds no extra context about what gets destroyed (e.g., branch deletion, effect of force) or any side effects. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential behavioral and parameter details, making it closer to a placeholder than a well-structured definition.

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 destructive operation with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't mention prerequisites (worktree must exist), the role of force, or what happens to the branch. While an output schema exists, it doesn't cover these operational details.

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 provides no explanation of the path, branch, or force parameters. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving agents without any semantic understanding of how to use the 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 states the action (remove) and the specific resource (agent worktree) and ties it to git_worktree_create, making it distinct from generic worktree removal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_clean or git_worktree_list, though the agent worktree qualifier helps.

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 phrase 'created by git_worktree_create' implies the tool is intended for worktrees created by that specific tool, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the scope.

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