create_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates a branch, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the branch already exists, whether the operation is atomic, or what kind of response/error messages to expect. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the most important statement first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a branch creation operation in version control systems, more context would be helpful.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters (repo, name, ref). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as naming conventions, ref format examples, or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('Create a new branch') and resource ('in the repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches or push_files. It provides a complete verb+resource+context statement that leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('before making code changes to work on a separate branch'), providing clear context for its application. It distinguishes this from other branching-related operations by emphasizing it's for creating a new branch specifically for development work.

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