update_pull_request

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this is a mutation and which categories of fields change, but says nothing about side effects (reviewer notifications), whether omitted fields are preserved, reversibility of status changes, or permission requirements for a 15-parameter mutating tool.

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?

One compact sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The trailing list is dense but each clause corresponds to actual parameter groups, so little is wasted.

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 15-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation categories but leaves the behavior side thin. It does not need to explain return values (no output schema), yet prerequisites, side effects, and partial-update semantics remain unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the description need only add meaning beyond it. The description groups the parameters into reviewer/work-item/tag operations, which is mild organizational value, but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing pull request') and enumerates the three mutation families: properties, reviewers/work items, and tags. It's clear and distinguishable from create_pull_request by 'existing', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing pull request' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. required permissions or repo state), and no reference to the alternative create_pull_request tool for the non-existing case.

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