switchRepoBranch

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that a subsequent pull can rewrite the whole package. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the risk. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the key side effects and is consistent with the schema. It does not explain every edge case (e.g., branch creation via create flag), but those are covered by the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Switch an abapGit repository to another branch') and the resource (abapGit repository). It also explains the consequence ('it changes what the next pull would write'), which differentiates it from siblings like gitPullRepo or gitCreateRepo. The purpose is 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 provides context on the effect of switching (affects next pull, possible rewrite), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like gitPullRepo or gitCreateRepo. No mention of exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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