create_branchCreate a Git branch from a specific commit in an Azure DevOps repository, with a confirmation flag to prevent accidental creation if the branch name already exists.
Create a branch at an exact source commit, failing safely if the branch already exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to perform the mutation. | |
| project | No | ||
| branchName | Yes | ||
| repositoryId | Yes | ||
| sourceObjectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'failing safely if the branch already exists' behavior, which is valuable, and the 'exact source commit' constraint. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens on other failure conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the core action and key constraints. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary detail.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the confirm parameter, the meaning of sourceObjectId, or the failure behavior beyond branch-exists. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully and may still be uncertain about the exact semantics of the required 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 description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond the general notion of creating a branch. The 'confirm' parameter is critical for a mutation but is not mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of sourceObjectId, repositoryId, and confirm from the schema alone.
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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('branch'), and adds the key constraint 'at an exact source commit' and the safety behavior 'failing safely if the branch already exists.' It is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_branch, list_branches, and compare_branches, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 description implies when to use the tool: when creating a branch at a specific commit, and it implies a safe failure mode if the branch exists. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as creating a branch from a default branch or using a different API. The context is adequate but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.