Mark a GitHub pull request ready, or back to draft

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), it discloses the side effect that marking ready notifies requested reviewers, that redundant calls send nothing and return changed=false, and that closed/merged PRs error out. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the two modes and keeps every sentence informative, with no filler. Some phrasing is dense and awkward ('is in the asked state already is left as it is'), which slightly hurts scannability.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the side effects, no-op semantics, failure preconditions, and argument forms. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the pr format and repo fallback already in the schema. It does add meaning for undo (the direction switch) and for how a bare number resolves, but that is marginal added 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?

States a specific verb and resource (mark a pull request ready / back to draft) and names the exact flag that reverses direction. An agent can distinguish it from github_pr_edit, github_pr_close, or github_pr_review from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly defines the undo case, the no-op case (already in the asked state), and the precondition that only open pull requests can change, with closed/merged treated as an error. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for non-state changes, but the when-to-use boundaries are clear.

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