Remove a ticket's git worktree

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

The description discloses multiple behavioral traits beyond annotations: refusal conditions, no-op behavior, safety check for unrecognized paths, and branch preservation. This aligns with and expands on the 'destructiveHint' and 'idempotentHint' annotations.

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 concise sentences, each adding distinct value. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 cleanup tool with destructive consequences, the description covers all critical aspects: primary action, refusal conditions, edge cases (no worktree, unrecognized path), and post-conditions (branch intact). No further context is needed given annotations and sibling tools.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'force' parameter by linking it to uncommitted changes and safety. For 'project' and 'ticket', it provides context via example usage ('ticket/<ticket> branch'). With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('ticket's git worktree'), clearly distinguishing it from its sibling 'create_worktree'. It explicitly states the action and context.

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 clear guidance on when to use (after branch merge), when it refuses (uncommitted changes without force), and when it no-ops (no worktree registered). It lacks explicit alternatives but effectively sets usage boundaries.

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