abandon_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or reversibility. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the operation.

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 extremely concise with front-loaded purpose and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on side effects or prerequisites (e.g., permissions). It covers the basics but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand implications.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining pr_url_or_id as a full URL or numeric ID, and working_directory as optional path for context resolution. However, 'context resolution' is vague, and no other constraints or formatting are described.

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 action 'abandon (close without merging) an existing PR,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like complete_pull_request (merge) and update_pull_request (modify).

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 implies usage for closing a PR without merging. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings like complete_pull_request help differentiate.

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