create_pull_request

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Description adds specific behavioral details: supports cross-repo PRs via sourceProject/sourceRepository and automatic default reviewer merging, which are beyond annotation scope. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, 20 words. Core purpose first, then feature highlights. No redundancy, every word earns its place. Front-loaded with critical verb and resource.

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 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, description captures core action and key features. Lacks mention of return value or side effects, but annotations and intent are clear. Reasonably complete for agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of sourceProject/sourceRepository (cross-repo PRs) and includeDefaultReviewers (automatic merging), directly connecting to those parameters and providing context not in schema descriptions.

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?

Description starts with 'Create a new pull request' – a specific verb and resource. It immediately distinguishes from siblings like update_pull_request and merge_pull_request by focusing on creation and mentioning unique features (cross-repo, default reviewers).

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?

Clearly implies creation use case, but lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid (e.g., 'use for new PRs, not for editing or merging'). No mention of prerequisites beyond required params. Usage is implied but not fully specified.

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