update_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions changing status to 'active', 'abandoned', or 'completed (to merge)', which hints at side effects like merging. However, it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, revertibility, or what happens when auto-complete is set. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise: a single header line followed by a bullet-style parameter list. Every line serves a purpose. It is slightly redundant with the schema but efficiently conveys meaning. Could be more front-loaded with the primary use case, but the structure is logical.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter meanings but omits return value information (e.g., 'Returns the updated pull request object'). It also does not address error conditions or idempotency. It is adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool.

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's 'Args' section provides necessary context. Each parameter has a brief but functional explanation (e.g., 'Uses default if not specified' for project, 'to merge' for completed status). Some explanations are terse (e.g., 'User ID to set auto-complete by'), but overall adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update a pull request (change status, title, description, set auto-complete).' The verb 'update' paired with the specific resource 'pull request' and the listed actions make the purpose unambiguous. While sibling tools like update_work_item exist, the resource is distinct, and the description differentiates the tool's focus on PR attributes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pull_request or update_work_item. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An explicit statement about avoiding this tool for creating PRs or for modifying work items would improve clarity.

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