ybiz_add_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the action and required keys, but nothing about side effects, validation, idempotency, errors, or permissions. The reference to format is structural, not behavioral.

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?

Two dense sentences; the action and required fields are front-loaded and no words are wasted. The README redirect is concise, though not self-contained.

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 create operation with a completely open branch object, the description identifies the mandatory keys and points to get_branch for shape, which partially compensates for the empty schema. It leaves workspace semantics and the full valid-key set to external sources, so it is only minimally complete.

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 0%, and branch is an unconstrained additionalProperties object, so the listed required keys add real meaning. However, the workspace parameter is never mentioned, and valid keys are deferred to an external README rather than described.

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 a specific verb ('add') and resource ('branch'), immediately distinguishing it from list/update/get siblings. It also states the format is like ybiz_get_branch, reinforcing the object being created.

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?

It clearly sets the context: creating a new branch, with required fields enumerated. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to update_branch as the alternative for existing branches, but the new-vs-existing distinction is strongly implied.

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