createPullRequest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the GitVerse-specific behavior about reviewers/assignees and the draft parameter, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff: action, platform quirk, and draft usage. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose and the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical platform-specific usage (assignees vs reviewers) and draft behavior. It does not explain return values or errors, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the schema's completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying 'from head to base' direction and reinforcing draft and assignees usage, providing context beyond the schema.

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 action and resources: 'Create a pull request from head to base.' It also distinguishes draft creation via 'Pass draft=true', which differentiates it from the sibling createDraftPullRequest without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit platform-specific guidance: 'GitVerse has no reviewer requests — use assignees instead' and instructs how to create a draft. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like createDraftPullRequest or state when not to use this tool.

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