retarget_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action of changing the target branch, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on reviews, approvals, or CI status), permissions required, or error conditions (e.g., if target branch doesn't exist).

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 succinct with a single sentence for the main action and a clean bullet list for parameters. Every piece of information earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), return value details are not required. However, the description lacks context on when the operation might fail or what happens to the PR after retargeting. For a simple mutation, this is minimally adequate but could be more informative.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains all three parameters: pr_url_or_id ('A full PR URL or numeric PR ID'), target_branch ('New target branch name'), and working_directory ('Optional path for context resolution'). This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 'Change the target branch of an existing PR,' specifying the verb (change) and resource (target branch of a PR). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_pull_request' which is more generic, and 'create_pull_request' or 'abandon_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_pull_request' or 'set_pr_draft_status'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., PR must be open, user must have write access) or exclusions.

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