update_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that this is a write operation and that the return value is a normalized write-result mapping, plus the optional raw payload behavior. It does not mention permissions, no-op behavior when both title and description are omitted, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, a Returns section, and a concrete input/output example. Every element earns its place without redundancy.

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 a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the core invocation needs: all parameters are explained, the return shape is stated, and an example is provided. It lacks deeper caveats like field-format requirements, but it is sufficiently complete for normal use.

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 must compensate. It lists all six parameters with meaningful one-line definitions, including 'Optional replacement title', 'Optional replacement body', and 'Include the provider payload'. The definitions are somewhat terse but provide value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 resource: 'Update a pull-request title or description.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_pull_request_reviewers, create_pull_request, or close_pull_request.

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 clear from the stated purpose and parameter list, so an agent can infer when to choose it over related tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is unambiguous enough for most selection scenarios.

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