git_branch_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add one real behavioral guarantee: 'Never overwrites an existing branch'. It does not say what happens on a name collision (error vs no-op), what start_point defaults to, or whether creating with switch modifies the working tree.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the safety guarantee follows immediately. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the non-overwrite guarantee covers the main safety concern. The remaining gap is that two of four parameters and the collision/error behavior stay undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it mentions the branch name implicitly and covers 'switch' ('optionally switch to it'). The 'repo' and 'start_point' parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new branch') and adds useful scope ('optionally switch to it'). It doesn't name the sibling git_switch that overlaps with the switch behavior, so differentiation from siblings is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says the tool creates a branch and may also switch, but never says when to use git_branch_create with switch=true versus calling git_switch separately. No prerequisites (clean working tree? existing repo?) are given.

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