create_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'isolated worktree' but does not detail behavioral traits like prerequisites (repo existence), side effects, or whether the worktree is created as a directory. The mutation intent is clear, but important context is missing.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it concise and front-loaded.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It lacks explanation of what 'isolated worktree' entails or potential failures, but given the simple operation, it is reasonably complete for experienced users.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only noting the worktree detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 the tool creates a git branch with an isolated worktree, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_pr or run_command, though no other tool creates branches.

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. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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