branch_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the operation is local and does not perform a checkout/switch. However, it omits other important behaviors such as what happens if the branch already exists, how start_point is used, or any side effects on the working directory.

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, well-structured sentence that states the core action and its most important qualification. Every word earns its place, and the critical 'without switching' detail is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with an output schema and only three parameters, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like existing branches, invalid start points, or repository state, and the 0% parameter coverage leaves some room for misinterpretation.

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 should compensate by explaining roles, but it does not mention repository_path, branch_name, or start_point. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, and the schema provides defaults/required flags, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a local branch') and explicitly states the key distinguishing behavior ('without switching the repository to it'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool branch_switch and makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'without switching the repository to it' provides clear contextual guidance: use this when you want a new branch but do not want to leave the current branch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the contrast with switching is a strong implicit usage signal.

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