Switch Branch

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

Annotations already indicate that the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects on the working directory, whether changes are persistent, or how failures are handled (e.g., branch not found). It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not enrich them either.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without any redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter operation, the description is adequate, but it lacks context about expected outcomes (e.g., success message), prerequisites (branch existence), or error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema and the availability of sibling git tools, a bit more guidance would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'agent_id' and 'branch' having descriptive names and descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents them.

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 uses the specific verb 'Switch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'the active branch for an agent's git repo.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_git_create_branch, lyzr_git_merge_branches, and lyzr_git_deploy_branch, 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 the tool is used when you need to change the active branch, but it provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., the branch must already exist), alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no mention of how this differs from creating a branch or handling uncommitted changes, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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