convert_to_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (convert to draft) and mentions optimistic locking via version. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or state constraints (e.g., PR must be open).

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, a sentence for version guidance, and a clear bullet list for parameters. No superfluous information, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple state-change tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and a cross-reference for obtaining the version. It lacks explicit statements about preconditions (e.g., PR must be open) but is otherwise adequate.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining all four parameters. Particularly, it clarifies the version parameter's purpose (optimistic locking) and how to obtain it. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's action: 'Convert an open pull request back to draft mode.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like create_draft_pull_request (creates new draft) and publish_draft_pull_request (publishes draft to open).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It only provides guidance for the version parameter (obtain from get_pull_request) but lacks context on prerequisites or when conversion is applicable.

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