createDraftPullRequest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that this is the draft variant of createPullRequest, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior beyond what annotations and schema imply, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose and the equivalence, with no redundant or irrelevant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies the relationship to the sibling tool, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simple creation tool with all parameters documented in the schema and annotations covering the mutation/destructive nature, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly. It does not describe the return value, but since there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, this is a minor gap. The equivalence note adds helpful context, so a score of 4 is justified.

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%, meaning every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. According to the calibration, with high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate further, so this is a fair score.

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 explicitly states the action (create) and the specific resource (draft pull request), and distinguishes it from the sibling createPullRequest by noting it is equivalent to createPullRequest with draft=true. This clearly differentiates the tool from its sibling, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 conveys the usage context by stating it is equivalent to createPullRequest with draft=true, which implies an agent should use this tool when they want a draft PR rather than a regular one. It does not explicitly say 'use this when...' or mention when not to use it, but the equivalence clause provides sufficient guidance for selecting this tool over the sibling.

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