Promote an experimental branch to a new mainline, archiving the old mainline and incrementing version. Requires explicit approval; note is written to CHANGELOG.md for audit.
把实验分支提升为新主线：旧主线归档、版本号 +1（必须由用户明确批准）。note 为必填的提升理由，写入主线 CHANGELOG.md 供事后审计
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 实验分支名（只能用小写字母、数字、连字符；main 是保留名） | |
| note | Yes | 提升理由（必填）：为什么这个分支更好、依据是什么，写入主线 CHANGELOG.md | |
| root | Yes | Conversation Branch 工作区根目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that the old mainline is archived, the version number is incremented, and the note is written to CHANGELOG.md for audit. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and postconditions.
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?
A single dense sentence front-loads the core operation and then packs in the side effects, approval precondition, and audit requirement. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.
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?
All parameters are documented, annotations are present, and the description spells out the operation, preconditions, and side effects. No output schema is needed for this kind of mutating operation, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
Input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that note is required and auditable, but adds no fundamentally new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: promote an experimental branch to become the new mainline, with concrete effects (old mainline archived, version +1). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cb_branch, cb_checkout, or cb_rollback.
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?
Explicitly states when this tool is appropriate: promoting an experimental branch to mainline, with mandatory user approval and a required justification note. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives among siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.