gitea_create_branch

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency (what happens if branch exists), side effects, authentication requirements, or return value structure. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action verb. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that doesn't serve the agent, slightly reducing the score from perfect.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits error conditions (e.g., branch already exists), success indicators, and required authentication/authorization context that should be documented given the lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping 'existing branch or commit' to old_branch_name and old_ref_name parameters. However, it fails to explain site, owner, repo coordinates or clarify the relationship/mutual exclusivity between old_branch_name and old_ref_name.

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 specific action ('Create a new branch') and resource ('Gitea repository'), including the source requirement ('from existing branch or commit'). It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like gitea_delete_branch or gitea_get_branch, though the verb 'Create' sufficiently distinguishes 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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), or preconditions (e.g., source branch must exist). The phrase 'from existing branch or commit' implies parameter usage but doesn't constitute usage guidelines.

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