create_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the branch is created from source_branch, what happens if the branch already exists, or if it affects the current working state). This is a minimal statement with no additional context.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse. While it lacks some contextual detail that could be included without bloat, it earns a high score for conciseness, though not a 5 because it borders on being too sparse.

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 simple nature of the tool (3 parameters, all documented in the schema, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but leaves gaps in usage guidance and behavioral effects. It is minimally viable but lacks the richer context that would make it genuinely complete for an AI agent.

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 100% of the parameters (repository, branch_name, source_branch) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but the schema fully compensates, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Create a new branch in a repository' clearly states the action (create), the resource (branch), and the container (repository). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_branches, create_pull_request) by its specific verb and object.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and unrelated sibling tools.

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