merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions merging via an on-chain transaction and returns the transaction hash, but lacks details on failure modes, repetitive calls, or prerequisites like signing. Moderate transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with usage context, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (on-chain merge, 4 params, no output schema), the description covers when to use, what it does, required parameters, and return value. It could mention potential failure scenarios but is largely complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates required parameters but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the 'provider' parameter beyond its default.

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 merges a pull request when reviewed, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pull_request and list_pull_requests by mentioning them as alternatives, but doesn't differentiate from other merge-related tools like create_pull_request.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when a PR has been reviewed and is ready to merge,' providing a clear condition. Also lists required parameters and references sibling tools for alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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