create_github_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a pull request, which signals a mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it updates branches, requires authentication, or can fail due to merge conflicts), nor does it mention the return value or error behavior.

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 exactly one short sentence, conveying the core purpose with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 4 required, and no annotations or parameter descriptions. Although an output schema is said to exist, the description does not explain which branches are needed, what the default base_branch is, or what happens after creation. The minimal text is not sufficient to fully guide an agent through correct invocation, especially given the 0% schema coverage.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention any parameter, and the schema property names alone (repo_name, title, body, head_branch, base_branch) are only marginally self-explanatory. The description provides no added meaning or guidance on parameter values, formats, 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 is a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Creates a new pull request.' It unambiguously identifies the action and subject, and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_github_issue or list_github_pull_requests.

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 usage is implicitly clear from the name and description: use this when you need to create a pull request. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., creating an issue, committing and pushing a file), nor any prerequisites or preconditions mentioned.

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