pr_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does provide substantive behavior: the PR is persisted in open state, contributors are registered under a uniform weight scale with a 0-1 and ≤10 constraint, and explicit trigger bindings are not overridden by heuristics. It does not cover errors, permissions, or idempotency, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence captures primary purpose first and packs only decision-relevant constraints (weight range, max contributors, trigger precedence) afterward. No filler or redundant words.

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 plus 100% parameter coverage covers the data needed to invoke the tool, and the key constraints are explained. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without guidance on the return value, failure modes, or when a sibling like pr_review should be used instead.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that human and digital employee contributors are weighted uniformly, reinforcing the 0-1/≤10 constraint, and explaining the precedence of confirmed vs suggested trigger bindings beyond the schema's enum.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('提交 workflow 变更提案（PR）') and specifies the resulting state ('open 态入库'), which distinguishes it from review/merge siblings like pr_review and pr_merge. It also highlights unique responsibilities: contributor registration and optional trigger binding.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase '提交 workflow 变更提案（PR）' plus the open-state creation semantics. However, no explicit conditions, alternatives, or when-not-to-use guidance are given relative to similar tools such as workflow_submit or pr_review.

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