github_update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the generic routing statement.

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 short and includes minimal information, but it is not well-structured. The routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') is likely unnecessary for the agent's use and adds noise. While no text is wasted, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of updating a GitHub pull request, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the required arguments, possible values, or expected outcomes. Although an output schema exists, the description itself provides no guidance on how to invoke the tool successfully.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' While this indicates the parameter format, it does not explain what keys/values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without actionable guidance. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 only restates the operation name 'update_pull_request' and provides generic routing info. It does not specify what aspects of a pull request can be updated (e.g., title, body, state). The purpose is vaguely implied but not clearly stated, making it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's specific function without relying on the tool name alone.

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 is provided on when to use this tool compared to siblings like github_create_pull_request, github_merge_pull_request, or github_get_pull_request. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting this tool over others.

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