updatePullRequest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose that publishing requires a private key (privkey param), signs an event, or broadcasts to relays. The word 'Publish' implies a network operation, but consequences and requirements are not stated.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy; every phrase carries meaning. It includes the NIP spec, kind, and the core update content, making it highly economical and well-structured.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the event structure, required dependencies, side effects, or expected outcomes, leaving an agent to guess.

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 is responsible for explaining the 10 parameters. It only references 'new tip commit' and 'clone URLs', which likely correspond to currentCommitId and cloneUrls, but leaves the other 8 parameters (e.g., ownerPubkey, repoId, pullRequestEventId, privkey) unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'Publish' and identifies the resource as 'NIP-34 PR update (kind 1619)', making it distinct from sibling tools like createPR or mergePullRequest. The parenthetical 'new tip commit + clone URLs' further clarifies the update payload, showing exactly what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createPR or mergePullRequest. The context is implied by the name and description, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios are provided.

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