mark_integrated

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the side effects: setting done_commit, status='done', and clearing branch_only. It could additionally mention idempotency or reversibility, but the core state transition is clearly disclosed.

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 succinct and front-loaded: the operation and its effects appear in the first sentence, followed by a brief caller note and parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of the tool name or schema 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers its purpose, side effects, and parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need explanation. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit guidance on when not to use it or what happens if invoked on an already-integrated item, but overall it is adequately complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It defines item_ref as 'The item id (e.g. CB-5)' and commit as 'Commit SHA where the work landed on main', giving both concrete meaning and an example. Both required parameters are semantically covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an item as merged to main' and enumerates the exact state changes (sets done_commit, status='done', clears branch_only). This is distinct from the sibling 'mark_branch_only' and clearly communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 context: it says the tool is 'Called by worktree-finish.sh' and defines the commit as 'where the work landed on main', implying it should be used after work has been merged. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a basic selection decision.

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