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 does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the new branch becomes active), permission requirements, error conditions, or whether the branch is created locally or remotely. The description merely lists parameters without explaining the operation's behavior beyond the fact that it creates a branch.

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, with a one-line summary followed by a formatted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The formatting is slightly inconsistent but overall efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any behavioral context such as error handling, required project state, or interaction with other branch operations. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent in all scenarios.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters (project_uuid, branch_name, source_branch, is_default) in Russian, which compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage). For example, it clarifies that source_branch defaults to 'main' and is_default controls default status. This adds value beyond the schema's titles.

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 Russian description 'Создать новую ветку проекта' clearly states the action (create) and resource (project branch). It is specific enough to understand the tool's primary function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fork_branch or checkout_branch, which also deal with branches.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether a project must exist or whether this tool is preferred over creating a branch via another method. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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