set_default_branch

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

No annotations are given, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core action but does not mention whether it overrides an existing default branch, requires permissions, or what happens to the previous default. This is a mutating operation with minimal disclosure.

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 purpose and a compact Args list. There is no superfluous text, though the Args list adds little beyond the schema. Structure is acceptable but not front-loaded beyond the initial statement.

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 still lacks essential context: no prerequisites, side effects, or workflow placement. With no annotations and weak parameter explanations, the description leaves the agent with only the basic action and no deeper understanding of implications.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The Args list merely repeats parameter names with trivial glosses ('UUID проекта', 'Имя ветки', 'Статус ветки по умолчанию') and does not explain how is_default affects behavior (e.g., what false does).

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: 'Сделать ветку веткой по умолчанию в проекте' (make a branch the default branch in the project). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_branch, checkout_branch, and reset_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist), or exclusions. The only hint is the description itself, which implies usage but gives no context or decision criteria.

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