gh_edit_pr

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't explain how 'edit' works, what side effects occur, or what operations are supported (e.g., label/assignee addition versus removal).

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, clear sentence that is easy to parse. While it's minimal, it doesn't waste words; however, it omits important details, so it's concise but under-specifying.

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 tool with 10 parameters, add/remove semantics, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It doesn't mention what can be edited or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% coverage from the description. The description ('Edit an existing pull request') offers no explanation of any parameter, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types.

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 identifies the action ('Edit') and the resource ('existing pull request'). The word 'existing' differentiates it from sibling tools like gh_create_pr, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like gh_get_pr or gh_create_pr. It only states the action without naming alternatives or exclusions.

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