lbb_branch

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

The description reveals critical behavioral traits: merge replays as one commit, SHACL validation is performed, conflicts are reported, and delete_source is destructive. This goes beyond the annotations which only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with 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 concise, with one dense paragraph covering all aspects. It front-loads with 'Branch lifecycle' and then details actions. While packed with information, it remains clear and avoids redundancy, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive coverage: actions, parameter roles, validation behavior, conflict handling, and destructiveness. It equips an agent to use the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds extra context for parameters like 'from_branch' (explains role in create vs. merge) and 'delete_source' (explains it consumes the branch), enhancing understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 specifies the tool handles the branch lifecycle with two distinct actions ('create' and 'merge'), each explained with sufficient detail. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on branching operations, while siblings like lbb_query or lbb_commit serve different purposes.

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 explains when to use create vs. merge, including specifics like 'merge: replay a child branch onto its fork parent' and 'delete_source consumes the merged branch.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of branching is well-defined.

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