checkout_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'switch' and includes an 'apply_to_workspace' parameter that hints at side effects, but it does not disclose consequences for uncommitted changes, whether the operation is reversible, or what state is affected.

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 concise: one sentence clarifying the purpose plus an args list. It is well-structured and not verbose, though the args list largely duplicates schema information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown), the description lacks important context: when to use it, side effects, relationship to workspace, and what happens to existing changes. It is a minimal viable description, but does not give a complete picture of the operation.

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 lists all four arguments with terse explanations (e.g., 'UUID проекта'), but these mostly restate the parameter names and add little beyond the schema's titles. Only 'apply_to_workspace' gets a slightly more meaningful note ('Apply the branch state to the workspace'), but overall the semantics are shallow.

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 action: 'Переключить схему на другую ветку' (Switch the schema to another branch). This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like checkout_commit and commit_to_branch.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checkout_commit, fork_branch, or merge_branches. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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