abrir_pr

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral load; it does disclose that the PR is created as a draft and that title/body are generated locally rather than by a service. It omits what happens on failure, whether an existing PR causes an error, auth requirements, and that pushing is an externally visible mutation.

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 with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the dry-run caveat follows immediately. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 no explanation, but for a destructive, externally visible mutation with zero annotation coverage the description is thin on prerequisites and parameter meanings. It is adequate to attempt the call correctly but not to predict its side effects.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it explains only 'simular' and says nothing about 'pasta' (apparently the repository folder) or 'base' (target branch). Two of three parameters remain ambiguous from both schema and description.

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 names a specific compound action — push the current branch and open a draft PR with a locally generated title and description — which is more than the name alone conveys. It is distinguishable from git_push and git_commit because of the PR-creation step, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 one explicit usage rule is that simular=true performs a dry run showing the text without sending anything, which is genuinely useful. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over git_push plus a manual PR, nor any stated prerequisites (remote configured, authentication, clean working tree).

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