Check Project Merge

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, the description adds valuable behavior: 'without changing Git,' precise semantics of status='mergeable' vs 'up-to-date,' and what canMerge reflects after permission/protection/lock checks. 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, no filler; the most important discriminator ('not a conflict preview') appears early. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information needed to use the tool correctly.

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 read-only check tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome semantics (status, canMerge), mode direction, permissions/blockers, and target discovery. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly without needing to infer behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter context: mode receive/send direction, otherBranch as source or target depending on mode, and the discovery path for valid otherBranch values. ProjectId and response_format are already well described in the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check merge direction, branch relationship, permissions, and blockers without changing Git.' It distinguishes itself from openl_merge_project_branches by explicitly stating it is not a conflict preview, so an agent can differentiate it from the sibling merge tool.

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 states when this tool is appropriate (pre-merge check, no mutation) and when it is not ('This is not a conflict preview'), pointing to openl_merge_project_branches for conflict discovery. It also directs the agent to openl_list_project_branches(scope='repository') to discover targets, including the caveat that a valid target may not hold the project yet.

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