github_create_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutation via 'create' and notes that from_sha overrides from_branch, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., branch already exists), required permissions, or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity.

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, clear sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no extraneous text, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics well. It explains the two source options and the override rule, but lacks details on edge cases or authentication requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so the description is fairly 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. It does so effectively by listing each parameter with a concise explanation, including the default for from_branch and the override behavior of from_sha. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema field names, though not every nuance (e.g., session_name) is fully elaborated.

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 opens with 'Create a new branch from an existing branch or commit SHA', which clearly states the action (create) and resource (branch). It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_branch, get_branch, and list_branches, making the tool's 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 by stating the tool creates a branch from a source branch or SHA, but it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. With many related branch tools available, clearer guidance on selecting this tool would be helpful.

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