bb_merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'destructive action' and 'requires confirmation', but omits details about what happens after merge (e.g., branch deletion, conflict handling) and does not explain parameters like merge_strategy or close_source_branch.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key traits. No wasted words.

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 destructive action with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on merge strategies, branch closing, workspace default, and expected return values, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand 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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the confirm parameter is for destructive confirmation.

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 verb 'Merge' and the resource 'pull request', and adds 'destructive action, requires confirmation', which distinguishes it from siblings like bb_create_pull_request, bb_update_pull_request, and bb_decline_pull_request.

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 when to use (merging a pull request) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives like bb_decline_pull_request or bb_update_pull_request.

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