create_branch

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'creates' (a mutation), but does not disclose required permissions, side effects (e.g., no checkout), or error conditions. The description is too minimal to inform safe usage.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but lacks structure and sufficiently detailed information. It could be improved by front-loading key information and adding more context.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about return values, possible errors, or the creation process. The current text is too brief to be fully actionable for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema itself already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 states the verb 'creates' and the resource 'branch' clearly, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pull_request and create_work_item by indicating that it creates a branch from an existing one. However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., Azure DevOps Git branch).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like push_commit or update_work_item_state. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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