Create Branch

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it creates from an existing ref, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it triggers pipelines, what happens if branch already exists). Beyond annotations, it adds limited behavioral context.

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 an 8-word single sentence that is succinct and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; there is no extraneous content. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not specify the return value (likely the branch object), error conditions (e.g., branch already exists, invalid ref), or any behavioral details beyond the basic action. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely use this tool.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (branch, ref, project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'from an existing ref', hinting at the ref parameter, but does not explain branch (required) or project_id. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('create') and the resource ('a new branch from an existing ref'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_delete_branch or gitlab_list_branches. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a valid 'ref' (e.g., branch name, tag, commit SHA), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 description implicitly indicates usage when you want to create a branch from an existing reference. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_create_tag for tags), nor any prerequisites (e.g., permissions, uniqueness). The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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