Create pull request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool requires write tools and confirm=true, indicating it is a mutation requiring explicit confirmation. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or success behavior, leaving behavioral transparency limited.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and the key confirm requirement. It is efficient and well-structured, though extremely terse given the tool's complexity. Still, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, edge cases, or typical usage scenarios like project defaulting or branch handling. The schema covers some parameter details, but the description lacks the broader context needed for correct invocation.

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 73%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds no new parameter information; it repeats the confirm requirement already present in the schema. Thus it provides no additional value beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Create a same-repository Azure Repos pull request,' which clearly identifies the verb (create), resource (pull request), and scope (same-repository). It is specific enough to distinguish from update/complete operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 like update_pull_request or complete_pull_request. It mentions 'Requires write tools and confirm=true,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. There is no decision criteria for selecting this over siblings.

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