github_create_pull_request

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 only states 'create a pull request' without disclosing side effects (e.g., triggers CI, notifications), permissions needed, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise and lists parameters in a bullet-like format, making it easy to scan. However, some parameter descriptions are empty, and the structure could be improved (e.g., removing redundant 'Args:' line).

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 has an output schema but it is not provided, and the description does not mention return values or behavior. For a creation tool with 5 parameters, lacking details on what is returned or any post-creation effects makes it incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions for some parameters (e.g., repo format, head branch name, base default), but title has an empty description and overall it's minimal. The description adds some value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create a pull request from a head branch into a base branch.' This specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_issue and github_merge_pull_request.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., branch must exist), and no exclusions. The description lacks context for proper tool selection.

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