Close pull request

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond that: closing an already-closed PR is a no-op, it is one API call, it is not batch-safe, and it lists the output shape. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility via reopen, which keeps it from being fully exhaustive.

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 short, front-loaded, and organized into useful labeled lines: purpose, use when, avoid when, speed, output, batch-safe. Every sentence contributes operational information without repetition.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: purpose, when to use it, the key alternative, idempotency behavior, batch safety, and output fields. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents pr, repo, reason, and provider. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond those fields; it mainly describes output keys. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: close/decline an open pull/merge request without merging it. It explicitly distinguishes the action from merging via project_pr_merge, so an agent can identify the intended operation without inspecting sibling schemas.

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 explicit positive conditions (superseded, opened by mistake, user asked to abandon it) and an explicit negative condition with the alternative (use project_pr_merge when the change should land). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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