manage_branches

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the specific constraint about not deleting the default branch, but does not disclose other behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or consequences of actions (e.g., whether creation is immediate or reversible).

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose, then list actions and a key constraint. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but lacks details about return values, error cases, or success indicators. Given no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect after invoking the tool (e.g., confirmation message, updated branch list).

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating that actions are create/delete and that startPoint is for create only. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool manages branches in a repository, enumerates the two actions (create and delete), and adds a specific constraint (refuses to delete default branch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_branches and other management tools.

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 implies usage for creating or deleting branches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using list_branches for viewing, or other manage tools for different resources). No guidance on prerequisites or workflow.

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