update_pull_request

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a pull request' with no mention of side effects, permissions, or whether changes are reversible. This is a mutation tool, and the description provides zero operational context.

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 sentence with no redundant words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides only the bare minimum, so it does not earn its place beyond echoing the tool name.

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?

Despite having an output schema and three parameters, the description adds no contextual completeness. It lacks any guidance on expected input behavior, return values, or how this tool fits into the broader PR workflow. The sibling tools are not referenced.

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 compensate at all. It does not explain what 'title' or 'description' represent, nor the significance of pull_request_id. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool offers no additional semantic value.

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 'Update a pull request' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what updating entails. It does not distinguish this from other mutation tools like merge_pull_request or edit_pull_request_comment.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the PR must already exist, what fields are updatable, or when to prefer merge/create/delete tools.

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