github_create_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that body supports markdown and draft defaults to false, and it mentions session_name for authentication. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), or failure behavior, leaving notable information gaps.

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 clear sentence followed by a well-formatted argument list. Each parameter is explained with concise, useful information and no redundant text.

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?

All parameters are thoroughly documented, and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks broader context such as prerequisites (e.g., existing GitHub session, branch existence) or when to use this tool relative to other PR operations. This prevents a higher score.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for every parameter, including examples for head/base, defaults for draft and session_name, and markdown support for body. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'Create a new pull request', which uses a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_pr, merge_pr, and close_pr.

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 'create' verb and the required parameters (owner, repo, title, head, base) make the intended usage clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like github_update_pr, so it misses the top score.

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