code.create_branch

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

With no structured annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so via inline risk tags: approval required, workspace write, and risk dangerous. It also discloses a side effect beyond the schema: the branch is checked out, not merely created. It adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe failure behavior if the pattern is not matched.

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?

All content is packed into one front-loaded sentence plus one constraint sentence; there is no filler. The inline tags immediately communicate approval and risk before the action. It could only improve by defining the pattern, not by adding length.

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 simple one-parameter mutation, the description covers the action, approval requirement, workspace write risk, danger level, and naming constraint. The main omissions are the concrete allowedBranchPattern value and the approval/error workflow. Since there is no output schema and no structured annotations, the description is close to complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

There is one parameter, branchName, and the input schema provides only its type, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by tying branch creation to allowedBranchPattern, giving the parameter policy meaning. However, it never defines what allowedBranchPattern actually is or what name formats are valid, leaving a significant gap.

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 a concrete action ('create and checkout') and a specific resource ('guarded feature branch'), and adds a hard constraint ('must match allowedBranchPattern'). It is distinct from sibling code tools like git_diff, apply_patch, and commit_changes, though it never explicitly names an alternative. The terms 'guarded' and 'allowedBranchPattern' are left unexplained, so clarity is strong but not maximal.

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 useful context by restricting creation to feature branches and warning that approval is required and the branch name must match allowedBranchPattern. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over another or give a when-not-to-use case. Selection guidance is mostly implied rather than directly stated.

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