create_design_branch

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that subsequent saves flow to the new branch and that Kiln Pro is required — both non-obvious behavioral facts. It omits what happens if base_version_id is omitted, whether the branch name must be unique, and any error/permission behavior beyond the tier gate.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the remaining lines are marketing copy ('preserve this version so you can branch, restyle, compare outcomes...') plus an upgrade URL with tracking parameters, which dilutes the actionable content.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the parent/version relationships and success behavior undefined. It covers the tier gate and the save-routing effect but not enough for an agent to call it confidently without guessing at optional parameters.

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 only 17% (just a default for 'annotation'), so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It gestures at 'a specific version' and 'named branch', hinting at base_version_id and name, but says nothing about design_id, parent_branch_id, or created_by, leaving half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a named branch forked from a specific version) and even the follow-on effect. It does not distinguish this from sibling branch creators such as create_feature_branch, create_decoration_preset_branch, or rebase_design_branch, so an agent must infer which flavor applies.

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 purpose sentence implies the scenario (branch to restyle/compare without losing the current design) and the Pro requirement is a real prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, nor a pointer to the alternative branch tools in the large sibling set.

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