create_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool creates a pull request, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a PR object). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its limited content.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the GitHub-specific context (e.g., PR lifecycle), what the tool returns, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. The agent would need to infer much from the parameter schema alone.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also adds no extra value about parameter relationships or usage context.

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 ('Create a new pull request') and resource ('in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_branch' beyond the obvious resource difference, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role in the GitHub workflow.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing branches), when not to use it (e.g., for direct commits), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'submit_pull_request_review' or 'create_issue'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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