markPullRequestMerged

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'publish status' without explaining the implications (e.g., it publishes to relays, requires a private key, or changes PR state). The description provides minimal insight into the tool's behavior or consequences.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. While it could be more detailed, the conciseness itself is a strength, though it borders on under-specification.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the status code, the 'PR root event' concept, parameter purposes, required inputs, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any of the 7 parameters (prId, ownerPubkey, repoId, privkey, relays, content, mergeCommitId). The only hint is 'status 1631', which doesn't map to any parameter. This leaves parameter meaning almost entirely undocumented.

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 action: publish status 1631 (merged/applied) for a PR root event. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'Convenience' hints at a specific utility. However, 'PR root event' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not fully clarified, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Convenience' and the specific status code, suggesting it's a shortcut for marking a PR as merged. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like publishStatusForRoot or mergePullRequest, and no clear exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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