merge_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation returning a normalized write-result with state and URL, and the example shows a 'merged' state. However, it does not mention side effects such as permanent branch changes, required permissions, or failure conditions when a merge is not possible.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds value, the main action is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema defaults or redundant filler.

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 description covers all parameters, shows an example, and describes the return mapping, which is enough for basic invocation. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it omits side-effect and precondition details such as whether the operation can be reverted, what happens on merge conflict, or whether specific provider permissions are required.

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%, and the description compensates fully by defining every parameter: provider, repo, pull_request_id, merge_method with allowed values, and raw. The example input/output adds concrete context that the raw schema does not provide.

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 verb and object, 'Merge a pull request', making the core action unmistakable. It also distinguishes this from siblings like close_pull_request and update_pull_request by focusing on merging and producing a merged state.

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 intended use is implied by the name and verb, and the 'merge_method' description clarifies which merge strategies are available. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over close_pull_request or update_pull_request, nor any mention of conditions such as 'PR must be approved before merging'.

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