create_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the new branch will point to the origin branch's HEAD, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., if the branch already exists), required permissions, or whether the operation modifies the remote repository. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 gives a good overview, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out potential error conditions and the nature of the return value. It is complete enough for a simple operation but could be more robust.

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 schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between newBranch and originBranch (the new branch points to the origin's HEAD). This enriches the schema's 'base branch to create from' description.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new branch from an existing one'). It also elaborates on the behavior (pointing to the same commit) and differentiates from sibling tools like create_tag or create_merge_request, as it explicitly focuses on 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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_branches to verify existing branches first.' This gives clear context for successful usage, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools for other operations. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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