merge_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens post-merge. For a mutation tool, this is a critical omission.

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 one short sentence, which is minimal but lacks substantive information. It does not waste words, but it also fails to provide valuable detail, making it under-specified rather than properly concise.

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 presence of 5 parameters, an output schema, and related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain merge methods, dry run behavior, or how this tool fits into a workflow with sibling tools like create_pr or comment_pr_review.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Merge a pull request.' is a clear verb+resource statement that directly conveys the tool's action. However, it does not add any additional scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_pr' or 'review_pr_diff', which limits its clarity slightly.

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 versus alternatives, such as when a pull request is ready to be merged or prerequisites like required reviews. No context is given for appropriate usage contexts.

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