git_worktree_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the worktree is an isolated directory and that branch switching does NOT occur, and mentions dryRun in schema only. However it omits where the directory is created, whether repo state is mutated, error/permission behavior, and reversibility, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Purpose and mechanism come first, then the ticket example, then the IMPORTANT follow-up instruction. The follow-up block is agent-directed workflow guidance rather than tool semantics, which pads the description somewhat, but overall it is reasonably tight 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 6-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, isolation semantics, naming behavior, and downstream steps well. It stops short of describing the created path/return shape or failure modes, but the schema carries the parameter detail.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including from, slug, branch, and dryRun. The description adds only the ticket auto-naming example, which the schema already conveys in its ticket/slug descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Start a new hop (git worktree) for a ticket or feature") and immediately scopes it with "Creates an isolated directory for parallel development without switching branches." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like git_worktree_list, git_worktree_open, and git_worktree_remove.

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?

Explains the triggering context (parallel/isolated development) and how to pass a ticket ID to auto-name the branch, plus explicit post-creation routing to "hop to <ticket>" and "hop open <ticket>". It does not explicitly contrast when to use this vs. hop_start or git_worktree_switch, but the context is strong.

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