publish_draft_pull_request

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

The description mentions optimistic locking via the version parameter, which is a key behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks other behavioral context such as reversibility, required permissions, or side effects like triggering CI. It adequately covers the locking mechanism but not full safety profile.

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 with a clear opening sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and well-structured, though the Args section could be slightly redundant given the schema; however, due to zero schema coverage, it earns its place.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., PR must be in draft state) and error conditions (e.g., incorrect version). The parameter dependency on get_pull_request is helpful, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four parameters and adding context, especially for 'version' ('current version required for optimistic locking'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though constraints like source for project_key/repo_slug are implied.

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 action: 'Publish a draft pull request, making it ready for review.' It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_draft_pull_request' and 'convert_to_draft'.

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 a prerequisite: the version parameter must be obtained from get_pull_request for optimistic locking. It implies usage on draft PRs, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings like 'merge_pull_request'.

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