passgage_create_branche

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new branche,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose required permissions, idempotency, side effects, return values, or validation behavior. This falls short of meaningful transparency.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it largely restates the tool name (passgage_create_branche) and adds no additional context, so it does not fully earn its place in terms of informative value.

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?

Given a single generic 'data' object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent has no idea what fields to include in 'data', whether authentication is required, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a create operation.

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 one parameter 'data' with 100% coverage, but its description is generic ('The data for creating the branche') and additionalProperties allows anything. The tool description adds nothing about the required structure or fields. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 branche'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like passgage_list_branches, passgage_get_branche, and passgage_update_branche. However, the typo 'branche' and lack of detail about what a branche is prevent a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the action, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other tools such as update or delete. This is effectively no usage guidance beyond the obvious implication from the verb 'create'.

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