merge_branches

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses atomicity and clarifies that the tool does not choose winners or archive the root, which is valuable. But for a 9-parameter mutation it omits idempotency, permission/authorization requirements, failure behavior (e.g., expected_family_digest mismatch), and what gets persisted or returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it immediately states the atomic record action and the key non-actions. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity is also a cause of missing information captured in other dimensions.

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 9 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke this correctly. It leaves nearly every parameter and all result/error semantics undefined.

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% across 9 required parameters, including a nested object (branch_report_heads). The description provides no meaning for any parameter — not root_task_id, expected_family_digest, conclusion, conflict_resolution, operation_id, sender, or recipient — leaving an agent unable to fill the schema correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Record ... convergence decision atomically in Core') and adds exclusions ('never choose winners or archive the root'), which helps distinguish it from a true merge or archive operation. However, terms like 'convergence decision' and 'Core' are jargon-heavy and the purpose remains somewhat vague without schema context.

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 usage after a convergence decision but gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The exclusions ('never choose winners or archive the root') are useful but do not tell an agent which sibling tool to use instead.

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