create_branch

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

Annotations only indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds important behavioral context: no state copy occurs (only pointers) and the source of branching (current position or specific operation). This goes beyond the minimal annotations.

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 concise (a few sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The mix of Japanese and English may reduce clarity for some agents, but overall it efficiently conveys essential information without waste.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers core functionality and key parameters. However, it omits details about return values, error conditions, and default behaviors (although defaults are in schema). It is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 description adds meaning to 'from_branch' and 'at_op' by stating they specify the source of branching. However, it does not describe the 'name' parameter beyond its existence. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 it creates a new branch and specifies use cases: parallel plots and if-expansion exploration. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting no state copying (only pointers). The verb 'create' and resource 'branch' are explicit.

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 explicit usage context: used for parallel plot exploration and if-expansion. It also explains branching from a specific position (from_branch or at_op). While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the context is clear enough among sibling tools.

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