boj_github_merge_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Merge a pull request' implies a write operation that modifies repository state, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: authentication requirements, whether merging is destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., merge conflicts), or what happens on success (e.g., closes PR). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While overly brief for completeness, it achieves maximum efficiency in its given form without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a GitHub merge tool, this leaves the agent guessing about critical operational details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', 'pull_number', or 'method' represent, their formats, or that 'method' has enum values (merge, squash, rebase). With 4 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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 'Merge a pull request' clearly states the action (merge) and resource (pull request) with a specific verb. It distinguishes this tool from sibling GitHub tools like 'boj_github_create_pr' or 'boj_github_get_pr' by focusing on merging rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't specify the platform (GitHub) which is implied by the tool name but could be more explicit.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., pull request must be in a mergeable state), exclusions (e.g., not for draft PRs), or related tools (e.g., use 'boj_github_get_pr' to check status first). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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