createPR

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the signing requirement, which is useful, but fails to mention mutating side effects, authorization beyond signing, or the impact of creating the PR. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is arguably too terse for a complex tool, though the conciseness itself is well-executed.

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 high complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the PR creation workflow, the meaning of signing, or how this tool relates to the CLI variant, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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% across 10 parameters, and the description adds no parameter semantics. Beyond the parameter names (e.g., ownerPubkey, repoId, commitId), the description does not explain their roles or relationships, leaving the agent without essential input details.

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 the specific action and resource: "Create a pull request." This clearly differentiates it from siblings like createIssue (issues) and updatePullRequest (updates), which are distinct operations.

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 such as createPRViaGittrCLI or updatePullRequest. The only extra hint, "REQUIRES signing," is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline, and there are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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