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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so a write op that is non-idempotent is known. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond annotations: the call returns a version id, and switchToBranch must be set explicitly, implying a side effect on the active branch. It does not say what persists or how the new branch relates to sourceBranch state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, followed by the two facts an agent needs before calling. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value ('version id') but is thin on the three undocumented parameters and on how created branches interact with the surrounding branch workflow. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema coverage is only 25% – the schema documents projectId but leaves branchName, sourceBranch, and switchToBranch bare. The description partially compensates by tying the creation to sourceBranch and implying branchName is the version's name, but it never explains what switchToBranch actually does beyond 'set it explicitly,' leaving a required boolean under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a named project version from sourceBranch.' An agent can tell this apart from sibling branch tools like list_branches, switch_branch, diff_branches, and merge_branch, though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

'Set switchToBranch explicitly' is a parameter instruction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to create a branch versus switching or merging, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that would be the alternatives.

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