Create an Orca worktree

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the repo/project prerequisite and a duplicate-avoidance workflow, but says nothing about failure on duplicate names, what the setup script does, or whether the agent start is synchronous — meaningful gaps for a 10-param mutating tool.

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, then prerequisites, then the pre-check. No filler; the only weakness is that terseness like "Needs repo or project" costs a moment of parsing.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, the description covers the essentials of invocation but omits what is created and returned, the baseBranch default, and the setup=skip vs inherit consequences. The rich schema compensates for much of this, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 all ten parameters are self-documenting, giving a baseline of 3. The description still adds real value by signaling that repo *or* project satisfies the selector requirement (both are optional in the schema) and by coupling agent with prompt as an optional pair.

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+resource ("Create a new git worktree in Orca") and adds scope ("optionally starting an agent in it with a prompt"), which separates it from orca_worktree_list/show/ps. It does not, however, distinguish itself from orca_agent_launch, which also starts agents, leaving a sibling overlap unresolved.

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?

"Check orca_worktree_list first to avoid duplicates" names a sibling and the condition that selects it, and "Needs repo or project" states a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not guidance or indication of what to do if the worktree already exists.

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