merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions supported merge strategies. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether merging is irreversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds useful detail about merge strategies. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after merging (success/failure outcomes), return values, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond the implied 'open' state. More behavioral context is needed given the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning merge strategies (which the schema's enum already covers), but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or parameter interactions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('merge') on a specific resource ('an open pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'decline_pull_request' or 'update_pull_request'. It provides the exact verb and target without being tautological.

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 by mentioning 'an open pull request', suggesting it should only be used when a PR is open. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for closed/merged PRs) or name alternatives like 'decline_pull_request' for rejection scenarios.

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