git_branch_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action 'Delete' which implies irriversibility, but it does not disclose the existence of a 'force' parameter, the behavior when deletion fails (e.g., unmerged branch), or any side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading; however, it omits important destructive nuances.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is concise. However, it is under-specified: for a delete tool with a force flag and safety implications, one sentence is too sparse to be considered appropriately sized. It is efficient but incomplete, balancing conciseness against lost 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, plus a destructive operation with a force flag, the description is far from complete. It does not mention the 'force' parameter, typical failure cases, or any behavior beyond the core action. The tool's context among git siblings is not leveraged to provide additional guidance.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'name' is inferred as the branch name, but 'force' is completely undefined—its purpose (force-deleting unmerged branches) is not stated. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema's field names, which are not self-sufficient for a destructive operation.

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 is a clear imperative verb+resource: 'Delete a git branch.' It precisely identifies the operation (delete) and the target (git branch), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_branch_create, git_branch_list, and git_branch_merge. No ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., cannot delete the current branch), safety conditions (e.g., merged state), or when to use the 'force' option. A tool like git_branch_merge or git_branch_create is implicitly different, but no explicit comparison or usage context is given.

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