update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals mutation via 'update' but does not disclose side effects such as closing the pull request via state, whether null clears a field, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes information about the resource and the fields being updated.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, more operational context is needed. The description omits state value meaning, the role of 'index', and nullable field behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but correct selection and invocation still require details the description does not provide.

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. It adds meaning for title, body, and state, including that they can be used in any combination ('and/or'). However, it does not explain the meaning of the required 'index' parameter or the acceptable values for 'state', leaving important semantics to inference.

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 ('update') with a concrete resource ('pull request') and enumerates the exact mutable fields: title, body, and state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request, create_pull_request, merge_pull_request, and update_issue.

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 usage when modifying a pull request's title, body, or state, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. Usage context is inferable, not clearly articulated.

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