git_branch

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

The description reveals important operational details beyond the annotations: delete requires confirmed=True and refuses the current branch; force=True replaces an existing branch; behavior in detached HEAD state; and return values (branches list or confirmation text). These enrich the agent's understanding of side effects and prerequisites, complementing the destructiveHint annotation without contradiction.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence provides distinct information: operations, usage context, exclusions, best-for, and return/behavior notes. It is not as lean as a two-sentence example, but it avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose. The structure is logical and scannable.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the three operations, return formats, confirmation/force requirements, exclusions, and relevant edge cases (detached HEAD). It covers both selection criteria and invocation details, making it self-sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema already describes all 6 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how confirmed, force, all, and operation interact (e.g., delete requires confirmed=True, force replaces branch, all shows remotes). It doesn't elaborate on repo_path or name, but these are self-explanatory from schema. Overall, the description adds clear value beyond schema.

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 clearly states 'List, create, or delete branches' with a specific resource (branches) and verb. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming git_checkout and git_tag for operations it does NOT perform, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to review existing branches before choosing where to work, to start a feature branch, or to remove a merged one'. Also gives exclusions and alternatives: 'Does NOT switch branches — use git_checkout for that; does NOT manage release markers — use git_tag'. This fully helps an agent select between tools.

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