abort_worktree

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 does add context by stating 'without merging,' which clarifies that changes will not be integrated. However, it does not disclose the destructive nature of aborting (e.g., whether changes are discarded or if the operation is reversible), leaving the agent without full transparency about consequences.

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 only two sentences: 'Aborts worktree without merging. Use when feature is cancelled.' It is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and usage context. It tells the agent what the tool does and when to use it, while parameter details are fully captured in the schema. It doesn't explain post-abort behavior, but for a cancellation action this is not a critical gap.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions ('Path to worktree' and 'Reason for abort (for logging)'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Aborts worktree without merging.' This is a specific verb with a resource and a qualifier that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanup_worktree. It also provides a clear use case: 'Use when feature is cancelled,' which further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use when feature is cancelled,' giving a clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the provided condition is specific enough to guide selection. This is a clear context without exclusions, meriting a 4.

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