create_branch

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

The description discloses that the operation changes remote state and requires branch-creation permission, and lists possible errors. However, the readOnlyHint is not present in annotations; the openWorldHint doesn't contradict anything. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail side effects beyond errors. With minimal annotations, it could do slightly more, but it does mention mutation and permission requirements.

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 two sentences, information-dense, front-loaded with purpose and usage. The parameter details are appended at the end but do not bloat. Slight redundancy with schema descriptions for parameters, but overall efficient.

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?

Given 3 simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, side effects, permissions, and errors. It lacks explicit mention of return value format, but error list and typical behavior suffice. No output schema means some return detail might be useful, but is not critical.

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%, so the schema documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it explains that project_id accepts numeric ID or URL-encoded path, branch is the new name, and ref selects the starting revision. This matches schema descriptions, so adds small value but does not exceed baseline.

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 (create) and resource (branch) and distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives and noting branch creation is distinct from inspecting or protecting. Clearly identifies the operation's scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use and provides alternatives: use get_branch or list_branches to inspect, protect_branch for protection afterward. Also implies when not to use (for inspection). Provides clear context.

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