update_pull_request

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that reviewers, work items, and tags are handled as add/remove pairs, but it omits how mutation actually behaves: whether this is a partial update, whether omitted fields are cleared, what a status change to 'abandoned' or 'completed' implies, and what permissions are required.

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 no filler; the operations are listed in a scannable order. It is efficient for a tool with this many parameters and stops well short of padding.

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?

This is a 15-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain partial-update semantics, required IDs, the organizationId/projectId defaults, and status-change consequences — none of which appear. The 100% schema coverage partially compensates for parameter detail, but the behavioral picture an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 every one of the 15 parameters is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a top-level grouping of capabilities (properties, reviewers, work items, tags) and no format, default, or interaction semantics beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing pull request") and enumerates the updateable surface: properties, reviewers, work items, and tags. That distinguishes it from create_pull_request and from add_pull_request_comment, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied by "existing pull request" — the agent can infer this is for modifying, not creating or reading, a PR. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over update_pull_request_thread_status, add_pull_request_comment, or update_work_item for linked work items, and no stated prerequisites or status-transition rules.

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