Create Pull Request Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not state required authentication/scopes, whether the branch must already be pushed, or any side effects of creating a PR; only the implicit mutation is conveyed.

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 single sentence is clean and front-loaded with the core action, so it wastes no words. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a git-mutating tool with zero annotations and no guidance, the description is far too thin. It omits auth requirements, branch prerequisites, and how it relates to the update/merge siblings.

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 7 parameters (including head/base/owner semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('GitHub pull request'), so an agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like update_pull_request_tool or merge_pull_request_tool, which also act on pull requests.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_pull_request_tool or merge_pull_request_tool. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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