fork_merge

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

Beyond the annotation destructiveHint: true, the description discloses that the operation tallies change-log entries as promoted, records outcome_note, and is irreversible. These are important behavioral side effects not implied by the annotation alone. This meets the standard of adding significant context about what the tool does beyond the structured data.

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 compact and each sentence adds unique value: the primary action, the side effects, and the irreversibility are stated in three direct sentences. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, side effects, and irreversibility. It also guides the agent to fork_status for post-closure inspection. It does not discuss error conditions (e.g., calling on a non-existent fork) or prerequisites, but given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, this is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It explicitly explains `outcome_note` as the close-out summary, but the two required parameters (`app_id` and `fork_id`) are not described at all. Since these are the critical identifiers, the agent is left without guidance on their meaning or format, which is a notable gap.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Close an open fork as MERGED'. It differentiates itself from siblings like fork_status or fork_delete by specifying the action results in the work being 'promoted' and being irreversible. The context that the fork 'cannot be reopened' further distinguishes it from other fork operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 contextual usage guidance: it is for when 'the work landed', implying the fork is ready to be merged. It also mentions that after closure the fork 'can only be inspected via fork_status', which implicitly tells the agent to use fork_status for inspection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fork_delete or fork_join, so it stops short of naming alternatives explicitly.

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