Git Create Or Update PR

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the push action, authentication requirement, and the detect-edit-or-create logic. Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description enriches without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: a lead sentence, prerequisite, behavior summary, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers the workflow, prerequisites, parameter details, return format, and integration with Leantime. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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%, but the description adds meaning for ticket_id (appends Leantime block), base (for new PRs), draft (new PRs only), and repo_path (default cwd). It improves clarity beyond the schema alone.

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 pushes the current branch and creates or updates its GitHub PR, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_commit and git_create_branch by focusing on PR management.

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 context for when to use the tool, including prerequisites (gh authenticated) and behavioral details (detects existing PR or creates new one). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling context makes differentiation clear.

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