herdr_worktree_remove

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so 'Destructive.' merely restates structured data rather than adding context. The description does not say what is lost (e.g. uncommitted changes, agent state) or whether the operation can be undone, which would be the valuable addition for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded; nothing is wasted and the key signal is immediately visible.

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 mutation with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: safety is covered by annotations and parameters by the schema. It still omits when to prefer this over herdr_workspace_close and what exactly gets destroyed, which an agent would benefit from.

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 100%, so all three parameters (workspace_id, confirm, force) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or interaction detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a worktree workspace'), which clearly separates it from herdr_worktree_create and herdr_worktree_list. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similar herdr_workspace_close sibling, leaving some ambiguity about which removal tool applies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as herdr_workspace_close, nor any stated prerequisites. The only implied usage comes from the word 'Remove', which is not enough to route an agent among closely related siblings.

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