update_pr_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'updates' but does not disclose whether this posts a comment, sets a status check, overwrites existing data, or requires specific permissions. This lack of detail is significant for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core action and resource. It wastes no words, though the brevity sacrifices important details.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not clarify the mechanism of 'updating' (comment, status, etc.) or the impact on existing data, leaving critical context 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely references 'CI results' which likely maps to 'message', but it does not explain owner, repo, pull_number, or message. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 the tool updates a pull request with CI results or process updates, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_ci_results (which analyzes) and send_slack_notification (which notifies), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 like analyze_ci_results or notify_deployment_status. The description implies usage through 'CI results or other process updates' but does not state when to prefer this over siblings.

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