Update Pull Request Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one key trait — this does not merge, and closing is done via state="closed" — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects of overwriting title/body, leaving significant behavioral gaps 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema fields.

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. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should say more about behavioral consequences (e.g., that closing is a state change on the PR, permission requirements); it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only the semantic that state="closed" closes without merging; it adds no format or interaction detail (e.g., what happens if body is omitted vs null) beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update a GitHub pull request") and adds scope detail (closing or reopening). It clearly reads as distinct from get_pull_request_tool and list_pull_requests_tool, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation rests on the tool name rather than explicit routing.

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?

Gives actionable usage context: use state="closed" to close a PR without merging, and explicitly warns that this is not the merge path. That is a clear when-to-use cue, though it offers no guidance on when to prefer it over other update paths or what happens on reopening.

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