create_feature_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, what permissions or tier gating actually apply at call time, whether the new branch inherits state from the parent branch, or what happens on name collision. Worse, most of the text describes unrelated Pro features (calibration, mid-print edits, textures), which can mislead an agent about what the tool does.

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?

Only the first sentence is substantive; the following three lines are pricing/advertising copy that inflates the definition without adding operational meaning. The one useful sentence is front-loaded, but the majority of the text does not earn its place.

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?

A six-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more than one sentence plus an upsell. Nothing explains branch identity/uniqueness, required permissions, or how the returned branch relates to the parent, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 17% -- only 'annotation' carries a default -- so the description must compensate and does not. It never distinguishes feature_id from base_feature_version_id, nor explains parent_branch_id (branch from a branch) versus base_feature_version_id (branch from a version), which is the key semantic decision for this tool.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: fork a named branch from a feature version. It does not differentiate from siblings such as create_design_branch, create_decoration_preset_branch, or rebase_feature_branch, so the agent must infer which branching tool applies. The remaining sentences add no clarity about the operation at all.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus rebase_feature_branch, create_design_branch, or cloud_clone_feature, and no prerequisites or follow-up steps. The only guidance-like text is a commercial upsell ('Requires Kiln Pro. Upgrade: ...'), which does not help the agent decide when to call this tool.

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