delete_branch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description extends that by detailing the permanent nature ('permanently removes a remote branch'), the permission requirement ('requires branch-delete permission'), and the possible error cases (protected-branch, missing-resource, or permission error). This adds meaningful context beyond the structured annotation.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Delete branch from project') and then provides usage and behavioral details. It is somewhat long but every clause earns its place, avoiding 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the return type (deletion result or errors), permission requirements, and pre-condition checks (confirm branch, use get/list first). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'Delete branch from project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_branch and list_branches by focusing on deletion, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this only after confirming the branch name and intended data loss; use get_branch or list_branches before deletion and never use it to remove branch protection.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, naming alternatives directly.

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