github_create_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. However, it only states the basic action and required inputs. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if branches don't exist), rate limits, or what happens upon creation (e.g., triggering CI checks). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It efficiently communicates the core action and key inputs. Although it could benefit from additional context, it is not overly verbose.

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 high schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description provides the minimum context to understand the tool's input. However, it does not explain the return value (likely the created PR object), error scenarios, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% and each property has a description. The description adds no new meaning beyond 'Specify source and target branches, title, and body,' which partially echoes schema labels. Baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 purpose: 'Create a pull request in a GitHub repository.' It specifies the verb ('create'), the resource ('pull request'), and the key parameters (source/target branches, title, body). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_create_issue.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does. The context implies it is for creating pull requests, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools like github_create_issue.

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