Complete pull request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutating merge, requires confirmation, works only on active non-draft PRs, and respects policies. It does not spell out failure modes or irreversibility, but provides strong behavioral constraints 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential eligibility, policy, prerequisite, and confirmation requirements with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 complex mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical prerequisites: active non-draft status, reviewed commit, write tool access, confirm=true, and policy non-bypass. It does not describe return values or all possible side effects, but the schema covers branch deletion and work item transitions as parameters.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by tying expectedSourceCommitId to the reviewed source commit and emphasizing confirm=true, but it does not explain mergeStrategy or mergeCommitMessage semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it merges an active, non-draft pull request, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_pull_request and set_pull_request_auto_complete by making the merge action explicit and immediate.

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?

Gives clear context: use for active, non-draft PRs, with a reviewed source commit and confirm=true, and notes it will not bypass policies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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