Create repository branch

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description does not contradict this and adds no further behavioral details such as permission requirements or failure modes, but given the annotations, the bar is met with minimal extra context.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy, directly conveying the tool's core function.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. The tool is relatively simple (create a branch from a ref), and the description sufficiently captures the required inputs and intent. It could mention error cases (e.g., if branch exists), but this is not essential. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'project' is described). The description adds meaning for 'ref' by clarifying it can be a branch, tag, or commit SHA, which is valuable. However, 'branch' (the new branch name) is not described, but it is self-explanatory from the tool name and purpose. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 the verb 'create' and the resource 'branch', and specifies that it can be created 'from an existing branch, tag, or commit SHA'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag and create_commit, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for creating branches from various refs but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., 'use create_commit for committing changes'). The context of siblings suggests branching, but no explicit exclusion or comparative guidance is given.

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