create_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Open a pull request' without revealing side effects such as whether close_source_branch defaults to true, permission requirements, or what happens after successful creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 the tool's complexity—5 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema—the description is critically incomplete. It fails to specify required inputs, default behavior, or any workflow context, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 does not mention any parameters. It provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving agents to infer the role of source_branch, destination_branch, or close_source_branch from the schema alone.

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 'Open a pull request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this creation action from sibling read/update/merge tools. It is more than a tautology because 'open' is a natural synonym for 'create' in this context, though it remains minimal without extra details.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pull_request or merge_pull_request. There is no mention of prerequisites, branch strategy, or scenarios where creation is appropriate.

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