update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update' and lists fields; it does not reveal whether the reviewers list replaces or appends, whether empty strings clear title/description, whether the PR must be open, or what side effects occur if the update partially fails. For a mutating 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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key scope (update pull request, fields affected) is front-loaded and every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, a 5-parameter mutating tool should provide more context. The description does not cover required identifiers, return value, validation rules, or post-update effects. It is minimally usable but incomplete for safe 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 40%, and the description partially compensates by listing title, description, and reviewers as the updatable fields, which adds some semantic role to those bare schema properties. However, it does not explain nuances like the format of reviewer identifiers, allowed combinations, or whether at least one optional field must be supplied.

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 names a concrete verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a pull request'), and the exact editable fields ('title, description, or reviewers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pull_request, merge_pull_request, and decline_pull_request without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 implies the tool is for modifying existing pull request metadata, and the sibling list shows alternative operations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over create_pull_request or state exclusions (e.g., use merge_pull_request for merging). The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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