delete_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a branch' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting pull requests), or what happens on success/failure. The schema's 'force' parameter hints at unmerged branch handling, but the description doesn't explain this behavioral nuance.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, every word earns its place by stating the essential operation.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, success conditions, error scenarios, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively despite the good schema coverage.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Delete a branch' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it clearly indicates a deletion action, it doesn't specify what type of branch (Git branch in Bitbucket) or distinguish this tool from potential alternatives among siblings like 'remove_requested_changes' or 'merge_pull_request' that might also involve removal operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a branch to exist), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting protected branches), or sibling tools like 'get_branch' for verification. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.

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