create_branch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Main description is minimal, but input schema description adds useful tips (e.g., plain branch names, fully-qualified refs for PRs). Does not disclose failure modes, permissions, or side effects. Adequate with gaps.

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?

Main description is a single clear sentence. Input schema description adds useful context without excessive verbosity. Overall, concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema and no description of return values. For a creation tool, the agent needs to know what happens on success (e.g., branch object or acknowledgment). Lacks completeness despite schema tips.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The schema descriptions explain defaults, required fields, and formatting examples. Main description adds no parameter info, but schema is rich enough.

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 'Create a new branch from an existing one' clearly states the action and the resource (branch). It distinguishes from other tools like create_commit or create_pull_request. However, it does not explicitly mention the version control context, though siblings imply it.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings like create_commit or create_pull_request are related but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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