sassy_ghq_protect

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. It reveals the core protective actions ('no force push, no delete, enforce on admins') but omits important behavioral context such as required permissions, whether it modifies existing protections, idempotency, or side effects. The description is too brief to fully inform the agent of the tool's impact.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core action and its key constraints. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic identification but lacks essential contextual details. It fails to mention that owner and repo are required, branch defaults to main, or any prerequisites like admin access. Though complexity is low, the description leaves the agent without enough guidance for correct invocation.

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, but it provides no parameter explanations. The parameter names (owner, repo, branch) are self-explanatory, and the branch default is in the schema, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Protect') and resource ('a branch'), and the parenthetical details (no force push, no delete, enforce on admins) concretely define the protection rules. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sassy_ghq_push or sassy_ghq_pr, which handle different GitHub 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose implies usage for protecting branches, there is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to other repository management tools.

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