github_pulls_update_branch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or failure conditions (e.g., up-to-date branch, conflicts). The agent is left unaware of potential risks.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful. It earns points for brevity but loses for lacking substance.

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 complexity of updating a pull request branch (a write operation with potential conflicts), the description is insufficient. No output schema is provided, and there is no explanation of success/failure outcomes. The tool leaves the agent with minimal guidance.

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%, but property descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description does not add information beyond the schema, such as expected structure for the 'body' parameter (e.g., 'expected_head_sha'). Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage, but no added value.

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 'Update a pull request branch' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_pulls_update` or `github_pulls_merge`, which could cause confusion for an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. There is no mention of alternatives or context about the branch being behind the base branch or conflict scenarios.

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