github_close_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the non-merge aspect. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., PR becomes closed, cannot be reopened), permissions required, or behavior when the PR is already closed/merged. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 exceptionally concise, with a single front-loaded sentence defining the core action followed by a clean parameter list. There is no redundant text or repetition of schema titles.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the description omits important context such as prerequisites (PR must be open), reversibility, or failure conditions. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 includes an Args block with one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'owner: Repository owner', 'pr_number: PR number to close'), adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema defaults. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though 'session_name' could be more explicit.

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 'Close a pull request without merging.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_merge_pr and github_update_pr. The action and scope are immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'without merging' provides clear context that this tool is for closing a PR when merging is not intended, implicitly excluding the merge path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple action.

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