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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic create action and does not mention side effects, validation rules, required permissions, branch handling, or response behavior. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 short sentence, so it is concise in size, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides not additional structured guidance. For a tool with 7 parameters and 23 sibling operations, this is underspecification rather than effective 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one generic sentence. It misses important operational context such as when to choose this over update/merge/decline, prerequisites like branching or permissions, and any post-create behavior. This is incomplete for reliable agent 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 71%, so the input schema already documents the meaning of most parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema provides enough semantic grounding for the required fields. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Create a new pull request'. This distinguishes it from sibling read/update/merge/decline operations in the sibling list. However, it does not add any distinguishing detail beyond the tool name itself.

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 update_pull_request or merge_pull_request. The phrase 'a new pull request' implies the creation case but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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