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. It adds useful context about automatically setting up branch references and assigning reviewers, but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses without losing clarity.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity and absence of structured safety/behavioral data, it should provide more guidance on what to expect after invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as formatting examples or constraints not captured in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create a new pull request') and resources ('code changes', 'feature branches'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'merge_pull_request' or 'decline_pull_request' by focusing on creation rather than modification or review actions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('when you want to submit code for review, merge a feature branch, or contribute changes'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'merge_pull_request' for merging without creation.

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