submit_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the confirmation gate ('Only runs when confirmed is set to true by human approval'), which is a key safety and execution behavior. It does not detail side effects like repository changes or permissions, but the most critical gating behavior is transparently disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the critical behavioral condition without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary concise description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 required params), the description plus full schema coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It discloses the unique confirmation requirement, and while it doesn't describe return values or prerequisites, the absence of an output schema and the clear schema documentation keep this within a well-rounded description.

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 parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description reinforces the 'confirmed' parameter's importance, but adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('pull request to target repository'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on PR submission, not user skills or code generation. The 'approved' and 'confirmed' conditions further specify the exact action and precondition.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating the tool only executes when human approval is confirmed, establishing when it is appropriate to invoke. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context signals and sibling names make it clear this is for the final PR submission step, not for generating fixes or reviewing code.

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