merge_branch

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

The description adds behavior information (merging all open drafts) beyond the annotation of destructiveHint: false. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or requirements. 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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action, but may be too terse for complex tools.

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 simplicity of the tool (single param, output schema exists), the description provides minimal additional context. It does not mention effects on drafts, idempotency, or expected output, leaving some gaps.

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?

The schema has one required parameter (branch_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what branch_id is or how to obtain it, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 action (merge) and the resource (all open drafts in a branch/session). It uses a specific verb and distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_draft, reject_draft, and reject_branch.

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 for merging open drafts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_draft. No when-not or context for exclusion is provided.

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