branch_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (add entities) and a key constraint (non-main branches). It does not reveal potential side effects, failure modes, or permissions needed. The transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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, critically front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word is necessary. No redundant or unclear phrasing.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and single constraint. It could mention return type or side effects, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds context: 'Add entities to the current branch' frames the operation, and 'Optionally includes relations between added entities' explains the boolean parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 'Also include relations'.

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 verb 'add' and the resource 'entities to the current branch', with a specific constraint (non-main branches). It also mentions optional inclusion of relations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_observations' or 'create_relations', which slightly reduces clarity for an agent choosing between tools.

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 condition: 'Only works on non-main branches.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using 'branch_create' to create a new branch first.

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