merge_pr

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

Given that annotations are entirely absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Merge a pull request'—a minimal restatement of the tool's name—without mentioning side effects like branch deletion, permission requirements, or potential merge conflicts. This adds no transparency beyond the name itself.

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, concise sentence with zero waste. It states the essential purpose directly and is front-loaded. While it may be too brief for other dimensions, conciseness is a strength here.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not explain merge behavior, default method, possible outcomes, or any constraints. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly beyond what the name already suggests.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so per baseline rules a score of 3 is appropriate. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already documents all six parameters, including optional commit_title, commit_message, and merge_method.

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 'Merge a pull request' clearly states the action (merge) and the resource (pull request), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pr, get_pr, and list_prs. However, it lacks any qualifying detail about scope or variant (e.g., merge into default branch), so it's clear but not maximally informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like approvals or CI status, nor does it reference sibling tools or alternative merge strategies. The description is purely definitional and offers no usage context.

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