Open a pull request

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses required permissions, the server-side prerequisite for the head branch, and specific error codes (409, 404, 422) with their meanings. It also states the return object shape, which is valuable since no output schema exists. There is no contradiction 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?

The description is well-organized with clear sections: summary, parameters, return value, prerequisite, and errors. It is front-loaded with the core action and permission requirement, and every sentence earns its place without redundant 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?

For a write operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: required parameters, optional parameters, authentication scope, preconditions, return format, and expected failure modes. This is a complete and self-sufficient definition.

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 input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal new parameter semantics beyond restating that head is source, base is target, and owner/repo are optional when defaults are configured, which the schema already expresses via default values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Opens a pull request between two branches of the repository.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like forgejo_create_issue or forgejo_get_pull_request, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 gives clear operational conditions: it is a write operation requiring 'write:repository' scope, and the head branch must be pushed before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for a single-purpose creation tool.

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