delete_branch

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details what is deleted (pointers, unresolved questions, snapshots) and what remains (operation logs), plus the restriction on main, providing substantial behavioral context.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The parenthetical about experiment/demo adds clarity without excessive length, though it could be streamlined.

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 covers key aspects: what is deleted, what remains, and a critical constraint. However, it omits potential prerequisites (e.g., branch must not be merged) and does not describe the parameter, leaving minor gaps for a simple tool.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, valid values, or how to specify the branch name, failing to add meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool deletes a branch and specifies it is for cleaning up unnecessary experiment/demo branches. It distinguishes from siblings like merge_branches and rollback_branch by focusing on deletion, and explicitly states main cannot be deleted.

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 indicates when to use (clean up unnecessary branches) and provides a constraint (main cannot be deleted), but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like rollback_branch or merge_branches, leaving some ambiguity.

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