cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses that the worktree is removed while the branch is kept. However, it does not state whether the removal is irreversible, what happens to uncommitted changes, or what job state is required.

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 wasted words. It communicates the core action and the key branch-retention behavior immediately.

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 destructive cleanup operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits safety-relevant details such as irreversibility, uncommitted changes, and required job state, and it does not compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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 sole required parameter, id, is not explained beyond the schema's type declaration. The phrase "a job's worktree" implies id identifies a job, but the description does not clarify the identifier format or behavior when the job is missing.

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 verb and resource: it removes a job's worktree while preserving the branch. This is clear and non-tautological, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as stop or status.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use cleanup versus alternatives like stop, or what prerequisites must be met before calling it. The usage is only implied by the operation itself.

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