Safely create or switch Git branches

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

The description mentions validation of branch name, expected HEAD, and clean working-tree requirement, adding context beyond annotations. However, it does not specify what happens on failure, how existing branches are handled, or any side effects. Given annotations are all false, the description carries some burden but is incomplete.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key validations. No redundant words.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage. The description does not explain return values, error behavior, or how the tool interacts with the Git state. It leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the 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?

With schema description coverage at 17% (only 'project' described), the description adds minimal meaning for other parameters. It references 'validating the branch name, optional expected HEAD, and clean working-tree requirement' but does not explain 'create', 'dryRun', or 'project' beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 or switches Git branches, with specific validation steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status or git_diff, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for creating or switching branches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like git_status or other Git operations. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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