create_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states only the action and the ref source, but does not mention what happens if the branch already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and states the key parameters in a compact, readable form.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Still, with four required parameters and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description leaves repository context and edge-case behavior unspecified, making it only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It partially explains new_branch and old_ref, but leaves owner and repo semantically unexplained. The relationship between old_ref and a commit SHA or branch name is also not clarified.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a branch named new_branch from old_ref.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like list_branches or delete_branch. The core action and source reference are immediately understandable.

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: use this tool when you need to create a new branch from an existing ref. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or common error cases.

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