create_user_branch

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

Annotations indicate read-write and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the naming convention. It does not disclose what happens if the branch already exists, whether it creates a git branch or something else, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for a creation tool.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and naming convention. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what exactly is created (e.g., a git branch), what the return value is, or any constraints. For a creation tool with no output schema, more detail is needed for full understanding.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only implies that the 'number' part of the convention is handled internally. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameter purposes adequately.

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 it creates a work branch following a specific naming convention (aimfp-{user}-{number}), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that create other entities like create_project or create_state_database, but since there is no other branch creation tool, this is acceptable.

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 use when a new work branch is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., user existence), or alternatives. The naming convention hints at usage context but lacks exclusions or conditions.

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