Hedgehog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the side effects (exclusion from synthesis, preservation of documentation) and implicitly indicates this is a state-mutation operation. It lacks explicit mention of reversibility or permission requirements.

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 follows an efficient three-part structure: purpose statement upfront, behavioral context in the middle, and parameter documentation at the end. No filler text; every sentence earns its place by providing non-structured context.

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 presence of an output schema and the description's thorough coverage of parameters (compensating for 0% schema coverage) and behavioral effects, the documentation is complete for this tool's complexity. Minor enhancement would be mentioning relationship to spike_rollback or spike_archive.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters with domain-specific semantics: 'Spike name' provides context for the name parameter, 'Branch to mark as dead end' clarifies intent, and 'Any insights salvageable' explains the optional salvageable field.

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 specific action ('Mark a branch as a dead end') and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like spike_complete_branch or spike_synthesize by explaining that dead-end branches are 'excluded from synthesis,' establishing clear functional boundaries.

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 clear contextual guidance through the consequence clause ('excluded from synthesis but their documentation is preserved'), which informs the agent when to invoke this tool versus completion alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use spike_complete_branch for successful branches').

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