create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a pull request will be created but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or failure modes. A mutation tool with no annotations should reveal more about the impact of the call.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action before the key semantic detail. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 is adequate for understanding what the tool does and the critical head/base relationship, and an output schema exists to describe the result. However, it does not cover usage boundaries, behavioral side effects, or the optional body parameter's role. For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is a noticeable but not severe gap.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters beyond the input schema. It specifically explains the two most ambiguous parameters, head as source branch and base as target, which prevents a common inversion mistake. The remaining parameters (owner, repo, title, body) are self-explanatory from their names.

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 'Create a pull request,' a specific verb and resource that clearly names the operation. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pull_request, update_pull_request, and merge_pull_request by the creation action. The head/base clarification adds precision.

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 verb 'Create' implies this is for opening a new pull request, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over update_pull_request or merge_pull_request. Usage is only implied by the tool name and action, with no guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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