github_update_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior such as 'empty = no change' for fields, which is useful but does not cover side effects of changing base branch, auth needs, or error conditions. The mutation implication is clear but additional caveats are absent. Output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values.

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 structured with a brief summary followed by a clean arg list. Every line is informative and there is no redundant prose, making it easy to scan.

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 relatively simple update tool, the description covers all parameters with semantics and includes an output schema. Missing pieces are explicit usage alternatives and deeper behavioral traps (e.g., invalid state, base change implications), but overall it is complete enough for typical use.

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 provides a one-line semantic for every parameter, including the meaning of empty strings and allowed state values. This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has zero description coverage for the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: updating a pull request's title, body, base branch, or state. It specifies the resource (pull request) and the precise fields affected, distinguishing it from related tools like create_pr, close_pr, and merge_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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to modify an existing PR's metadata), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from sibling tools like close_pr and merge_pr is inferred rather than stated.

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