gitea_create_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation implied by 'Create'. It omits side effects (notifications triggered), idempotency behavior, error conditions (e.g., duplicate PR handling), and return value structure (no output schema exists).

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 appropriately brief at one sentence. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata cruft that adds no semantic value for the agent. The core message is front-loaded and efficient.

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 with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the required workflow (branch must exist first), parameter relationships, or expected outcomes beyond the generic creation statement.

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 fails to compensate. It does not explain critical parameters like 'head'/'base' branch semantics, the 'site' URL format, or how 'assignees' differs from 'assignee'. With 11 parameters and no schema documentation, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('pull request') with context ('in a Gitea repository'). The word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling update/merge operations. However, it doesn't specify scope constraints or prerequisites (e.g., requiring the head branch to exist).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like gitea_update_pull_request or gitea_merge_pull_request. No mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or workflow context (e.g., that this typically follows branch creation).

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