create_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'Automatically retries on account sequence mismatch.' It does not mention other traits like idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond creation. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 reasonably concise, containing three main ideas (when to use, creation action, retry behavior, parameter list, alternatives) in a short paragraph. It could be streamlined by removing the repeated parameter list, but it is not overly verbose.

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 description covers the basic action and parameter details but lacks information about return values (no output schema), required permissions, or prerequisites (e.g., being logged in, having push access). Given the complexity and sibling tools, it is somewhat incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains optional parameters: 'assignees' (usernames), 'labels' (label IDs), 'issue_iids' (issue numbers to link). However, it does not explain 'owner', 'name', 'head_branch', or 'base_branch', leaving gaps in understanding.

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: 'Use this when you have pushed a branch and want to open a PR for review. Creates a pull request on Gitopia.' It uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('pull request'), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_feature_branch_pr' and 'git_push' by mentioning them as alternatives.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('when you have pushed a branch') and recommends an alternative ('Prefer create_feature_branch_pr for the full branch-commit-push-PR cycle'). It also lists required and optional parameters. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or conditions to avoid using this tool.

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