hop_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive-safety behavior: it removes the worktree directory and refuses when there are uncommitted changes unless force=true. It does not touch on permissions, prune semantics, or the allowMainWorktree danger path, but the core refusal contract is stated.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the safety contract and usage cue. No filler or repetition.

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 nine-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits dryRun, prune, and allowMainWorktree behavior and, more importantly, does not explain how the worktree is identified among the multiple alternative selectors.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented. The description only echoes the force=true behavior already in the schema and adds no identification-logic detail (slug+ticket vs branch vs ticket vs worktreePath). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('End a hop') and immediately disambiguates the jargon with the parenthetical '(remove git worktree)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like hop_start and hop_list without opening any schema.

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?

'Use when done with a ticket' gives a usable lifecycle cue, but there is no when-not guidance and no distinction from close siblings such as hop_clean or git_worktree_remove. The agent must infer which cleanup tool applies.

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