gitea_update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to clarify whether unspecified fields are preserved or nulled, whether the operation is idempotent, what valid values for 'state' are, or what the response contains.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with the core action front-loaded. Minor deduction for the '[UNIFIED]' prefix, which appears to be implementation metadata leaking into the user-facing description.

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 complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits critical details such as identifier formats for the required parameters, whether partial updates are supported, and the behavior when passing null values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for 11 parameters. It identifies the 7 optional updatable fields by listing what can be modified, but provides no guidance on the 4 required parameters (site, owner, repo, pr_number) or the format/encoding expected for fields like 'assignees' or 'labels'.

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 tool updates an existing pull request and enumerates the specific fields that can be modified (title, body, state, assignees, labels, milestone). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `gitea_close_pull_request` or `gitea_merge_pull_request`, which could also be used to change PR state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using the dedicated `gitea_close_pull_request` vs setting state via this tool). It lacks prerequisites, permission requirements, or workflow context.

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