merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Merge a pull request' only implies mutation without detailing side effects, such as whether the merge is irreversible, how it handles conflicts, what permissions are needed, or what response is returned. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, matching the update_drive example that scored 2.

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 an efficient single sentence: 'Merge a pull request.' It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it is minimal but not under-specified to the point of being tautological. This aligns with an efficient single-sentence description, scoring 4.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is just four words, providing no information about return values, side effects, parameter semantics, or use cases. Given the moderate complexity, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. Score 1.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no description for any of the 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever; it does not explain the role of owner, repo, pull_number, merge_method, or commit_message. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and fails to do so, a score of 1 is warranted.

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' uses a specific verb ('merge') and resource ('pull request'), clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pull_request or create_pull_request, though it offers no additional scoping or detail. This is clear and unambiguous, justifying a 4.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., CI passing, required reviews) or any conditions for merging. Sibling tools like create_pull_request or get_pull_request are not referenced, leaving the usage context entirely unclear. Score 2 per 'no guidance.'

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