gitea_close_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 but only notes that the operation avoids merging. It fails to mention whether closing is reversible (given the existence of gitea_reopen_pull_request), whether it affects branches, or required permissions. Critical safety and behavioral context is missing.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence front-loaded with the action 'Close.' While the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds minor noise without value, the core message is direct and free of redundancy. It appropriately sizes the explanation for the tool's scope.

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 four undocumented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for safe invocation. It covers the basic operation purpose but omits necessary parameter explanations, behavioral side effects, and return value information. The gaps require significant inference from the tool name.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter semantics to compensate. Parameters like site (likely the Gitea instance URL), owner, repo, and pr_number receive no documentation. The agent must infer all parameter meanings from the property names 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 states 'Close a pull request without merging,' providing a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling gitea_merge_pull_request by clarifying it does not merge changes. However, it does not differentiate from other siblings like gitea_update_pull_request or gitea_reopen_pull_request.

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 phrase 'without merging' provides implicit guidance that this tool should not be used when accepting changes is desired. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance such as 'use this to reject or abandon a pull request' and does not name the alternative merge tool explicitly. The guidance remains implied rather than instructional.

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