github_create_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the PR title formatting behavior, default values, and that it returns a dictionary with details or error. It does not explicitly mention side effects (e.g., GitHub write operation) or authentication needs, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence header, an Args list, a return statement, and a formatting explanation. No redundant sentences.

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?

The description covers all parameters, return value, and default behaviors. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist), but given the absence of an output schema, it is nearly complete.

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%, but the description compensates fully with an 'Args' section explaining each parameter, including defaults (repo, base_branch, draft) and the formatting rule for title using issue_id. Example provided.

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 it creates a pull request with 'proper naming.' It provides specific verb ('Create') and resource ('pull request'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like github_get_pr and github_list_prs by focusing on creation.

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 implies when to use the tool (to create a PR) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like github_create_branch or github_get_pr. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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