worktree_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that force defaults to false for safety and that delete_branch uses `git branch -D` (a destructive force-delete). However, it doesn't mention what happens to the worktree's branch if delete_branch is not passed, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no wasted words. The usage guidance is integrated efficiently.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and usage context, but with no annotations and no output schema, it could disclose more about side effects (e.g., what happens to the branch if delete_branch is omitted, whether force affects the branch deletion). It's adequate but not fully complete for a destructive 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 75%, and the description adds meaning to the force parameter ('más seguro') and delete_branch ('borra esta rama con git branch -D'). The worktree_path parameter lacks a description in the schema, but the tool name and description make its purpose clear.

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 ('Elimina') and resource ('worktree'), and adds optional branch deletion. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning cleanup after bring_changes, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it to clean up after bring_changes or to discard a failed attempt. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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