complete_feature

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention BLOCKS on failure and cleanup, but it claims 'quality gates cannot be bypassed' while the schema exposes a skip_tests parameter that explicitly allows bypassing tests (albeit with confirmation). This is misleading and under-discloses the risky escape hatch and cleanup side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and steps, the second provides a behavioral caveat. No wasted words, with clear prioritization of critical 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?

For a tool with this complexity, the description covers main steps and safety, but it omits the skip_tests parameter and any mention of return values or post-conditions. It is adequate for basic use, but the missing 'dangerous' parameter and lack of output info leave gaps.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond high-level actions. It references worktree and merge, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 function with a specific verb ('Completes') and a resource ('a feature'), then enumerates the steps: runs E2E tests, verifies build, merges to main, cleans up worktree. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like abort_worktree or rollback_feature by emphasizing that it is the safe merge path.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool ('This is the safe way to merge') and implies that it should be used when quality gates are desired, unlike potentially unsafe alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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