create_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('create') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, required access levels, or any other behavioral context. This is minimal at best.

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 very short, but it simply restates the tool name and provides no added value. It fails to earn its place because it duplicates the name without contributing any helpful detail or structure.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain required fields, branch relationships, draft behavior, or what the response will be. The tool is not usable from the description alone.

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% with 7 parameters, and the description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. It does not explain what base, head, draft, owner, repo, or title mean, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond raw schema types.

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 'Create a new pull request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests, get_pull_request, and merge_pull_request. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description relies entirely on the tool's name to imply usage, with no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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