Update pull request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Change') but does not mention that the operation is destructive or requires confirmation (confirm parameter exists but is not described here), nor does it disclose side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the completion note is a separate, clearly scoped sentence. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention that only specified fields are updated (others remain unchanged), that confirm must be true, or that the PR must already exist. The tool's complexity and the absence of structured metadata demand a richer description to ensure 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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It lists the editable fields (title, description, draft state, active/abandoned status) which map to parameters (title, description, isDraft, status), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare names. However, it does not clarify the required identifiers (repositoryId, pullRequestId) or the confirm parameter, leaving the agent to infer their roles. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the low schema 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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('PR') with a precise list of editable fields (title, description, draft state, active/abandoned status). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling complete_pull_request by explicitly delegating completion, and from comment/thread tools by focusing on core PR fields.

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 explicitly says 'Completion is handled by complete_pull_request', which provides clear direction on when NOT to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like comment updates or creation, though the purpose is specific enough that usage is largely implied. A bit more contrast with other update-type siblings would be ideal.

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