guard-merge

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

The description discloses the atomic validation-then-merge behavior and the guard constraint. However, with no annotations, it does not cover potential side effects, auth requirements, or failure handling beyond the implied no-merge if guards fail.

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 key actions and condition. No superfluous words; every part is necessary.

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?

The description is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what 'guards' are, how validation works, or what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure). More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not clarify how guards are specified or what 'validate' entails.

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 explicitly states the tool validates guards and merges a PR only if all pass, with 'atomic operation' highlighting indivisibility. The verb 'validate' and 'merge' combined with the condition clearly define the tool's purpose.

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 validating and merging PRs but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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