create_pull_request

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies mutation via "Create"; it says nothing about permission requirements, whether duplicate open PRs are rejected, how reviewers/work items are validated, or what happens on partial failure of a 12-parameter write.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the salient optional payloads after. Efficient, though the trailing clause slightly duplicates schema content rather than adding new information.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form additionalProperties object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not indicate what is returned (PR ID, URL, status) or how the open-ended additionalProperties field interacts with the typed fields, leaving the agent under-informed for a complex write.

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 100%, so all twelve parameters (including isDraft, additionalProperties, and the refs/heads branch examples) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of reviewers, work items, and tags merely restates a subset of that schema and adds no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new pull request") and enumerates the notable optional payloads (reviewers, work items, tags). It is unambiguous against siblings like get_pull_request and update_pull_request, though it never names them or explicitly contrasts the create-vs-update boundary.

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 on when to use this versus update_pull_request, no prerequisites stated (source/target branches must already exist, repositoryId/projectId resolution, auth requirements), and no note about behavior when an identical PR already exists. The agent must infer all invocation conditions.

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