create_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the language requirement and the ordering constraint, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not mention side effects like branch creation permanence, potential failure modes, or permissions. The mutation nature is implied by 'create' but not elaborated.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the essential usage context (ordering and language), and the schema fully documents parameters. It lacks a note about return values, but since there's no output schema, a brief mention could help. Still, it's adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, especially with auto-filled IDs.

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 schema covers all six parameters with descriptive text, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides full documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Create a branch and pull request') with a clear resource, and it names the sibling commit_files to differentiate itself. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering constraint ('Call BEFORE commit_files') which directs when to use this tool relative to a key sibling. However, it doesn't list other alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, so it's not fully comprehensive but clear enough for the main use case.

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