switchRepoBranch

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., discarding local changes, requiring authentication), the behavior when the branch does not exist, or what happens with the optional create parameter. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place and is easily parsable.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to be fully actionable. It does not explain success/failure conditions, error handling, or the role of optional parameters like user, password, and create. A simple branch switch has enough nuance (e.g., what happens to uncommitted changes) that this description is incomplete for safe 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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but because the schema already documents each field (repo, branch, create, etc.), the description does not need to compensate. The schema descriptions are terse but present.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switches') and a clear resource ('the branch of a Git repository'), unambiguously stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like gitPullRepo or pushRepo by naming the exact operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context such as requiring a clean working tree or using the 'create' flag for new branches. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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