create_pull_request

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the agent gains no insight into side effects (e.g., triggering CI, notifications), required permissions, or error conditions. The description does not disclose behavior beyond the basic creation.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and to the point. While more detail could be added, it avoids verbosity and is immediately understandable.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no context about success behavior, return values, or preconditions. The schema covers parameter definitions, but broader context is missing, making the tool less usable for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_pull_request or merge_pull_request. However, it does not further clarify what a PR is or its context.

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 (e.g., after creating branches) or exclusions (e.g., not for draft PRs if not supported). Sibling tools exist for related operations, but no differentiation is given.

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