herdr_worktree_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the '(or open)' nuance and states it returns a workspace, but discloses nothing about path constraints, permissions, or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification for a 7-parameter mutation tool, and the '(or open)' phrasing is slightly ambiguous.

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?

For a 7-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering behavior, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how the parameters relate, what happens on partial input, or the resulting workspace.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including the HERDR_MCP_CWD_ALLOW constraint on 'path'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (create/open) and resource (git worktree), and notes the return value (its workspace). It implicitly separates itself from herdr_worktree_remove and herdr_worktree_list, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 '(or open)' parenthetical hints at reuse of an existing worktree, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling worktree tools or herdr_workspace_create.

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