create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a creation/mutation operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, notification behavior, or what happens to linked work items, reviewers, or tags after 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a one-line summary, though a complex 12-parameter mutation tool could benefit from slightly more structure around required inputs.

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 12 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the required repository, branch, and title context, does not explain permissions or output behavior, and leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema for invocation-critical details.

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 all 12 parameters including required fields and nested additionalProperties are documented in the schema. The description only lists a few optional fields (reviewers, linked work items, tags) and adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new pull request') and clarifies scope with 'new,' which distinguishes it from update_pull_request and get_pull_request. It also names the main associative content (reviewers, linked work items, tags), so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for creating rather than updating or fetching pull requests, which is the minimum but not explicit guidance.

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