pr_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation ('Escrita: write + confirm') and explicitly says it does not merge. However, it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response format. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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?

Two short sentences contain all the essential information with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a key non-behavior and a write/confirmation signal. Every word earns its place.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not clarify required parameter semantics, return values, or failure conditions. The minimal caution about merge and confirmation is useful, but an agent would still face ambiguity about how to fill source, target, and other fields correctly.

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 only 30%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at the confirm parameter via 'write + confirm' and does not explain meaning for repo, source, target, title, description, or workItemIds. Although some names are self-explanatory, the critical source/target branch semantics are not clarified.

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 explicitly states the action and resource: 'Cria um pull request' (creates a pull request). It also disambiguates by saying 'NÃO faz merge' (does NOT merge), which clearly distinguishes the operation from a merge action. This is specific and immediately understandable.

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 main use case is clear: use this tool to create a pull request. The explicit warning 'NÃO faz merge' tells the agent not to use this tool when a merge is intended. It does not name alternatives like pr_update or pr_add_reviewers, but the sibling list and the verb 'create' make the intended context clear.

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