repo_create_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new pull request' implies a write operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it returns the created pull request object, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place as a minimal but clear statement of what the tool does.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are required, or how this tool relates to other pull request operations. The context signals indicate this is a significant operation that needs more explanation than provided.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high. No additional value is provided regarding parameter usage or relationships.

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 'Create a new pull request' clearly states the action (create) and resource (pull request), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'repo_update_pull_request' or 'repo_create_pull_request_thread', which would require a more specific scope statement to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to pull requests (e.g., 'repo_update_pull_request', 'repo_get_pull_request_by_id'), there's no indication of when this creation tool is appropriate versus when to use other pull request operations.

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