bitbucket_create_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (create), the default source branch, and raises ValueError if the client is not configured. However, it does not disclose whether branch creation is idempotent, what happens if the branch exists, or permission requirements. Basic behaviors are covered, but significant gaps remain.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It is concise at 9 lines with no unnecessary information. However, the Returns section could be more succinct (e.g., 'Returns JSON string of branch details') and might be slightly redundant with the output schema.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: parameters, return type, and error condition. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed in the description. The only missing element is potential failure modes (e.g., branch already exists). Overall, it is largely complete for a create 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all four parameters. The tool description repeats parameter names and the default for source_branch but adds no meaningful context beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain that 'workspace' can be a project key for Server/DC (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value over 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?

The description clearly states 'Create a new branch in a repository.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('branch'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitbucket_list_branches (listing) and bitbucket_create_pull_request (creating PRs). 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., if a branch already exists) or which sibling tool to use for related actions (e.g., bitbucket_get_default_branch for checking the default branch). The usage context is implied but not stated.

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