branch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by stating the operation is 'guarded by the source's expected_head,' implying optimistic concurrency, but it omits what happens on mismatch, permission requirements, whether the branch creation is atomic, and other mutation side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The fork action and guard condition are both stated immediately.

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?

This is a mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The one-sentence description provides only a high-level action and guard, which is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke a four-parameter branch-creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented required parameters. It clarifies the relationship between source and expected_head and implies branch is the new branch name, but it says nothing about project or parameter formats, leaving significant gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fork source into a new branch,' which is clearer than a generic create. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as create, branches, or merge, and 'source' remains ambiguous without schema descriptions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, branches, or merge. The only usage signal is the implied action of forking a source branch, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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