Merge Branches

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already convey. It does not mention conflict handling, whether a merge commit is created, whether the source branch is left intact, or any side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but no additional context is provided to help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action 'Merge'. It is free of fluff and every word contributes to the core purpose. No unnecessary details are included.

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 complexity of git merge operations (conflicts, fast-forward behavior, commit creation, etc.), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens to the repository state, whether the merge is pushed, or what the return value indicates. With no output schema, the agent is left without sufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., 'Branch to merge from', 'Branch to merge into'). The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Merge' and clearly identifies the resource ('one branch into another') and scope ('in an agent's git repo'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from the many other git operations in the sibling list, such as creating or switching branches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives like creating a pull request or switching branches, nor does it specify any preconditions (e.g., clean working tree) or situations where merging is not appropriate.

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