Create safe Git branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects; it usefully states that the tool does not check out the branch and imposes naming safety restrictions. However, it does not mention failure behavior, permissions, or how baseRef affects the created branch.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the restriction, and the key non-checkout behavior with no redundant words. The content is compact and immediately scannable.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotation or schema descriptions, the description covers only branch naming. It omits project identification and baseRef semantics, and does not reference the output schema or alternative tools, leaving important invocation details unstated.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters; it only clarifies the branch naming rule. 'project' and 'baseRef' are left undefined, leaving agents to infer meaning from names and defaults alone.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a constrained resource ('an mcp/* branch'), and a distinguishing side-effect ('without checking it out'). The naming restriction and title differentiate it from branch listing or checkout tools.

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 makes the intended use clear: create branches only under the mcp/* prefix and not on main/master. It explicitly excludes arbitrary branch names, though it does not name alternative sibling tools such as git_worktree_create or git_branch_list.

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