uvcs_branch_create_prepare

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the operation is split into prepare and confirm, and this call returns a short-lived confirmation token, explaining both the non-mutating nature of this step and the expiry window the agent must respect. It does not state what happens on confirm, what invalidates the token, or permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the workflow constraint, then the return value. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to understand the call.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value (a short-lived token) and the follow-up step, which is the essential missing piece for a prepare/confirm pair. Gaps remain around source-spec precedence and failure behavior, but those are secondary for a simple four-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions with examples, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The description's phrase "from a changeset or label" loosely maps to fromChangeset/fromLabel but adds no syntax, precedence, or exclusivity rules beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a Plastic SCM / UVCS branch") plus the two supported sources (changeset or label), which an agent can distinguish from sibling listing tools like uvcs_branch_list. It stops short of naming uvcs_branch_create_confirm explicitly, relying on the phrase "Requires prepare/confirm" to imply the pairing.

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?

"Requires prepare/confirm" tells the agent this is phase one of a two-step flow, which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no exclusions or prerequisites (branch must not already exist, permissions needed) and never says whether fromLabel and fromChangeset are mutually exclusive or which to prefer when both are available.

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