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 effectively describes the tool's behavior (creates a branch pointer without switching), clarifies the default behavior for 'from_ref' (defaults to HEAD), and specifies the return format (confirmation message). However, it lacks details on error conditions or permissions required.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral clarification, and organized parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential errors (e.g., duplicate branch names) or prerequisites (e.g., valid repo path).

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all three parameters: 'repo_path' (absolute path), 'branch_name' (name with example), and 'from_ref' (commit SHA or branch name with default behavior). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 git branch') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that it does not switch to the branch, differentiating it from 'switch_branch'. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('create a new branch pointer') and when not to use it ('DOES NOT switch to it'), with a clear alternative named ('switch_branch') for the subsequent action. This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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