update_pr_branch

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

The description discloses that rebasing is used, but without annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects like rewriting commit history, required permissions, or failure modes. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 single concise sentence that front-loads the key action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could incorporate more context without losing brevity.

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 simple operation and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic action but omits important context like expected outcomes (e.g., new commits), potential errors, and prerequisites. An agent may need more information to use it safely.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 updates a pull request branch by rebasing on the base branch, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_pull_request, which performs a different action.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. While the action is clear, an agent lacks context on scenarios where rebasing is appropriate or conflicts might arise.

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