github_create_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the 'effect' parameter is described as a claimed read/write effect that Spring verifies, and approval_ref is explained as needed 'when resuming a write.' It also explains idempotency_key as a stable business-action identity. This is useful context, though it does not fully describe failure modes or side effects.

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 compact docstring with a clear one-line purpose and a terse Args list. Every line adds parameter-level information without promotional or redundant filler. The only mild issue is that some definitions are brief to the point of being terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description covers most parameters and the core action. However, the requiredness mismatch with the schema, the cryptic platform-specific governance fields, and the lack of any usage or routing guidance leave gaps. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the description still does not fully resolve how an agent should handle approval/effect semantics in practice.

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 carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It provides meaning for most parameters: repo format, head branch name, default base, body markdown, project UUID, correlation reference, connector alias, idempotency key, effect verification, and approval reference. However, 'title' has no semantic description, and the description marks repo/title/head as 'required' while the schema declares all parameters optional, creating a confusing inconsistency.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous action: 'Create a pull request from a head branch into a base branch.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like github_get_pull_request, github_merge_pull_request, and github_create_issue.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_create_issue, github_update_pull_request, or it_ops_open_iac_pr. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the action name alone.

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