switch_branch

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

The description surfaces important runtime behavior beyond the annotations: the editor reloads, the tool waits for reconnection, and it returns the resulting vcs_status. This is useful context that annotations do not provide. It does not mention edge cases like unsaved changes, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 sentence sentences earn their place: the first states the action and behavior, the second provides an explicit exclusion. No fluff 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?

The description is adequate for a one-parameter tool with clear annotations and rich behavioral detail. It covers what happens, what is returned, and the main alternative. It could go slightly further in contrasting with open_branch/close_branch siblings, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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% and the schema already explains that branchId is the id of the branch to switch to. The description reinforces the schema's own reference to list_branches but does not add substantially new parameter meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Switch (checkout) the editor') and the resource ('an existing branch by its id'), with a specific source for IDs ('from list_branches'). It also distinguishes itself from create_branch by explicitly stating it only switches to existing 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 states when to use the tool ('Switch the editor to an existing branch by its id') and explicitly names a non-use case ('When NOT to use: to create a new branch') with the alternative tool ('use create_branch'). This gives the agent concrete decision criteria.

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