declinePullRequest

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: an optional message is posted to the discussion before closing. This communicates the order of operations beyond what the annotations alone provide, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral detail is delivered in a compact second sentence.

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 straightforward mutation with complete parameter schema and destructive annotations, the description provides enough behavioral information. It does not state the return value or explicitly say when the operation is allowed, but these are minor gaps for this tool.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that the message parameter is optional and that it is posted to the discussion before the close, which goes beyond the schema's brief 'Reason for declining'.

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 states a specific action ('Decline (close)') and a clear resource ('a pull request'). The verb 'decline' distinguishes this from sibling tools like approvePullRequest, unapprovePullRequest, and requestChanges, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use declinePullRequest versus related alternatives such as requestChanges, unapprovePullRequest, or updatePullRequest. The description only defines the action itself and leaves the decision context entirely to inference.

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