github_create_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It states the return format (dictionary with details or error) and shows naming convention examples. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the branch is fetched from remote), permissions needed, or rate limits. For a creation tool, this is moderately transparent but lacks full 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 (under 120 words) and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant or vague statements.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and return type. It includes examples to clarify usage. Minor gaps include lack of error handling details and explicit mention of whether base_branch is local or remote, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a branch creation tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter (branch_type, description, issue_id, repo, base_branch) with defaults and examples, significantly compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions. The examples illustrate how parameters combine to form branch names.

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 ('Create a branch') and the resource ('branch'), with a specific context ('following naming conventions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_pr (which creates PRs) and workflow_generate_branch_name (which only generates names). Examples further clarify purpose.

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 lists parameters and defaults but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_start_feature or workflow_generate_branch_name. Usage context is implied (creating a branch with naming conventions), but no when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is given.

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