Create Branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, failure conditions (e.g., if branch already exists), permissions required, or the return value.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, potential error cases, or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds no extra semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 action (create) and the resource (a new branch in the project). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_issue or create_merge_request, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the ref being an existing branch or commit SHA, nor any context like when creating a branch is appropriate.

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