ado_pull_request_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the create action and the write-mode prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, failure behavior, or what happens on success. The write-mode hint is useful but underdeveloped.

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 with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without bloat, but as a concise statement it works well.

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 no annotations, a nested request object with 7 properties, and only a terse one-line description, the definition is under-specified. An agent does not know how to construct the required request body or handle the write-mode precondition. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to provide enough context for 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 0% and the description does not compensate at all. It does not mention the required fields (repository, source_ref, target_ref, title) or the optional fields (project, is_draft, description). The agent must infer parameter meaning entirely from names and structure, which is insufficient for a nested request object.

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 the action and resource: 'Create a pull request'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, or query pull requests, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. The qualifier 'when write mode is enabled' adds a condition but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 a usage condition: only create a pull request when write mode is enabled, implying the tool should not be used otherwise. However, it does not explain what write mode is, nor does it offer alternatives or explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling tools.

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