create_branch

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavior. It conveys that the branch starts from a source branch head, defaults to the live branch, and is non-destructive ('without touching the live agent'). It does not elaborate on error conditions or limits, but the core behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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?

Two sentences pack all essential information: purpose, default behavior, and workflow. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the workflow well, including defaults and links to siblings. It omits explicit mention of the required agent_id (though schema does) and potential errors, but overall is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, providing baseline clarity. The description adds value by explaining that source_branch_id defaults to the live branch if omitted, and that the new branch_id should be used for subsequent editing, which goes beyond the schema.

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 creates a branch to work on changes in isolation, specifying the source branch default and linking to subsequent workflow steps. This distinguishes it from branch management siblings like delete_branch, rename_branch, and make_branch_live.

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 tells when to use (to work on changes without touching the live agent) and outlines the workflow (edit draft, publish, make live). It implicitly suggests using list_branches first via the source_branch_id parameter description, but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternative mention.

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