mind_branch

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses a key behavior: the branch isolates changes from the source until merged. It also provides naming constraints. However, it does not explain what happens to the current working context or whether the branch becomes active, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences: the first explains the core function with a clear analogy, the second specifies naming constraints. No redundant information is present.

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 branch-creation tool with only two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, isolation behavior, and naming rules. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description is complete enough.

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 both parameters clearly. The description adds value by specifying the exact allowed character set and maximum length for branch names, going beyond the schema's basic example.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a branch (fork) of the wiki, isolating edits, memories, and forgets until merge. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like mind_merge or mind_revert.

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 usage is clearly implied: use this to create an isolated branch for changes. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of the version-control-like suite makes the intended use obvious.

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