github_create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action but does not explain required permissions, potential side effects, or what happens if branches do not exist. This is a gap 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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a one-sentence description, the tool lacks important context such as return value, prerequisites, and error behavior. For a create operation with 5 parameters, the description feels incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the directional relationship between head and base branches, but it does not elaborate on any parameter details beyond the schema.

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 action (open a pull request) and the resource (pull request), with a specific direction from head branch to base branch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_merge_pull_request (merging) and github_create_issue (issues).

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 implies its usage by defining the action (open a PR) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as merge or list PRs. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it relies on the user's inference.

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