create_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the main side effects: pushing the current branch, opening a GitHub pull request, using gh, and requiring explicit confirmation. It stops short of covering failure modes or authentication prerequisites, but the disclosed behaviors are significant.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the confirmation requirement is stated immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose and side effects, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves contextual gaps: what happens on failure, whether gh must be authenticated, which branch is used as the source, and what the tool returns. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutating external tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It only hints that confirmation is required, which maps to the confirm parameter, and gives no meaning for repositoryPath, title, base, or body. The defaults in the schema do some work, but the description itself adds almost no parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb phrase: 'Push the current branch and open a GitHub pull request using gh.' This clearly identifies the action and resource, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like repository_diff or commit_repository.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a GitHub PR needs to be opened) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It does add a usage condition: 'Requires explicit confirmation.' No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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