create_worktree

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it creates a worktree but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existence of repo), or whether it is safe to re-run. It also claims caller_agent_id is required, contradicting the schema where it is optional with a default of null.

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 very concise: two lines of purpose, then well-structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main action. The authorization note is an important addition without redundancy.

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 provides the return format and lists arguments, but lacks preconditions (e.g., must have an existing git repository) and error handling details. Given the complexity (6 params, no annotations, output schema exists), it is somewhat incomplete but still usable.

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. It provides brief descriptions for parameters: repo_path, worktree_path, branch, etc. It adds condition for base_branch ('only valid when create_branch=True') and default for create_branch, but does not provide format, constraints, or examples for most parameters.

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 purpose: '新しいgit worktreeを作成する' (Create a new git worktree). This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_worktrees and remove_worktree which have different actions.

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 explicitly notes that only Owner and Admin can use this tool, providing important authorization guidance. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives, but the 'create' verb implies its use case, and sibling tools cover other operations like listing or removing worktrees.

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