df_branch

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful guardrails: the confirmation flag is mandatory and the tool verifies that no unpushed changes exist before proceeding. It could add more about whether the branch is created locally or remotely and what happens on failure, but the disclosed behavior is genuinely useful.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences deliver the action, naming rule, and required preconditions with no filler. Every sentence earns its place and no schema information is redundantly repeated.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential operational context: base branch, naming pattern, mandatory confirm flag, and the unpushed-changes preflight check. It does not specify the return value or failure mode, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds value by showing how issueKey, type, and description combine into the branch name format feat/PROJ-123-desc. It also reinforces that confirm must be true, which is important operational context beyond the raw parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Crear una nueva branch desde la rama base', and it gives the exact required naming convention feat/PROJ-123-desc or fix/PROJ-123-desc. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like df_checkout or df_find_branch without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It provides concrete preconditions: the tool requires confirm: true and checks that there are no unpushed changes before creating the branch. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as df_checkout for switching branches, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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