submit_pr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it declares the destructive workspace cleanup, the no-merge/no-force-push guarantees, the GitHub repository prerequisite, exact return strings, and the error path that preserves the workspace. This is well beyond a minimal 'submits a PR' statement.

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?

Four or five dense sentences each carry essential information: action sequence, safety constraints, prerequisite, return/error behavior. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important lifecycle information appears first.

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, destructive terminal tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, effects, failure semantics, and return format. An agent can call submit_pr correctly and predict consequences without needing additional context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their meanings. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific workflow with a concrete verb and resource: commit the workspace, push the selfdev/issue-<issue_number> branch, and open/reuse a PR, then destroy the workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_issue or check_pr_status, which only start or inspect work.

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 opening 'Finish work on an issue' establishes the intended point in the workflow, and the issue_number parameter notes the workspace must have been started with start_issue first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to call it, but the context is clear.

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