create_draft_pull_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains that draft mode means not ready for review and that 'refs/heads/' prefix is added automatically. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or what happens if branches do not exist.

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?

Concise with a clear structure: summary line, usage explanation, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return value details are not needed. Covers main purpose, usage guidance, and all parameters. Could mention that draft status requires explicit publishing, which it does, making it fairly complete for a creation tool.

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%, and description lists all 7 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies branch naming convention and that description is optional. Adds meaning beyond schema types and titles, though lacks examples.

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 it creates a new pull request in draft mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_pull_request' and 'publish_draft_pull_request', making the purpose precise and differentiating.

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?

Explicitly says draft PRs are not ready for review and directs to 'publish_draft_pull_request' for publishing. Also provides branch naming convention assistance. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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