Create Project Branch

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

With only an openWorldHint annotation and no read-only or destructive hints, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the title by explaining that the branch may originate from a specific revision, tag, or branch, and that HEAD is used by default. It does not describe failure modes, but the core mutation and default behavior are transparent.

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?

Three short sentences lead with the core action, then explain the branching sources and default revision. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 creation tool, the description plus full schema coverage gives the agent what it needs to invoke correctly: required parameters, default behavior, and response format options are covered. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't specify the return shape or error-on-existing-branch behavior, costing one point.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only restates the revision default already present in the schema and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource ('Create a new branch in a project's repository') and clarifies the revision source, including tags and other branches. This scope clearly differentiates it from sibling branch tools like list/delete/merge branches.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a new branch is needed in a project repository. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the operation is unambiguous so the agent can infer the correct choice.

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