delete_branch

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond that: the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, it affects both the branch and its checkpoints, it refuses current/permanent branches, and it does not reload the editor. This fully informs the agent of behavior the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the critical DESTRUCTIVE label. Every sentence adds value: permanence, irreversible nature, constraints, editor behavior, and the explicit alternative for reversible use. 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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers all essential context: what gets deleted, reversibility, constraints on what cannot be deleted, side effects on the editor, and when to use a sibling instead. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the operation is a deletion with no meaningful return contract to document.

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 schema already covers the only parameter with a clear description, 'Id of the branch to delete (from list_branches)', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not need to add much, and it does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the action: permanently delete a branch and its checkpoints. It also differentiates from the sibling close_branch by explicitly naming the alternative for reversible archiving, so an agent can distinguish the tool immediately.

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?

It explicitly provides when-to-use context and, more importantly, a when-NOT-to-use directive: archive a branch reversibly with close_branch. It also lists exclusions such as current and permanent branches, which gives clear operational guardrails.

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