close_branch

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the operation is reversible, reopening is possible via open_branch, the current branch and permanent branches cannot be closed, and the editor is not reloaded. This adds meaningful context on side effects and constraints that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: what the tool does, its reversible nature, key restrictions, a side-effect note, and when not to use it. The description is compact and front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's semantics, constraints, side effects, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke the tool 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%, and the schema already documents branchId as 'Id of the branch to close (from list_branches)'. The description does not need to add much, but it also does not go beyond the schema's parameter explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Close a branch'), clearly defines it as a soft reversible archive, and differentiates it from delete_branch by stating what it is not for. It also gives constraints (cannot close current/permanent branch), making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 explicitly includes a 'When NOT to use' clause and names the alternative tool (delete_branch) for permanent removal. It also explains the intended recovery path via open_branch, giving an agent clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over branch-related siblings.

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