repo_create_branch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'create', which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it switches to the branch, updates remote, or fails if branch exists). This is insufficient for a write operation.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is extremely terse and omits crucial context, so it earns a 4 rather than 5 for being efficiently structured but lacking substance.

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 tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description does not explain key operational details like whether the branch is created locally or remotely, whether checkout occurs, or what input is expected. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed, but behavioral context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It hints at 'from_ref' with 'given reference', but does not define what a reference is (commit, branch, tag) or clarify the roles of workspace_id and branch_name. No compensation for schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a resource ('a new branch') and source ('from a given reference'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like repo_checkout or repo_list_branches. It states the action and object succinctly.

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 context is implied: use this when you need to create a branch. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, such as repo_checkout for switching or repo_find_existing_branches for checking duplicates. No explicit exclusions are given.

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