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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: caller needs write access and must be PR author or repo owner, only open PRs change, marking ready triggers AI review, and the 'repo' scope is required. Idempotency and non-destructive read/write profile are consistent with the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then auth rule, side effect, and return shape in tight sentences; every sentence carries information with no filler.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description states the return shape {number, isDraft, changed}, and covers the auth, scope, and side-effect details an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description restates the draft=false/true mapping that the schema already provides, adding little new semantic detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (set draft state) with both directions spelled out via the draft=true/false values. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like update_pr or open_draft_pr without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly explains the two usage contexts (mark ready, revert to draft) and the same rule as the web 'Ready for review' button. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. open_draft_pr, update_pr), so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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