fork_merge

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the irreversible nature, that change-log entries are promoted, that outcome_note is recorded as a summary, and that only inspection via fork_status remains afterward. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then effects, then consequences. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 an irreversible mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, what side effects occur, and how to post-check via fork_status. No critical operational details are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to outcome_note ('close-out summary'), but app_id and fork_id are left to their self-explanatory names. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

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 specific action: 'Close an open fork as MERGED' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fork_delete (deletion) and fork_status (inspection), and explicitly notes the irreversible nature, making its unique role clear.

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 phrase 'the work landed' gives a strong contextual trigger for when to use this tool. It also warns that a closed fork cannot be reopened, implying caution and pointing to fork_status for inspection afterward. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like fork_delete or fork_join, so it lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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