bb_merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the return value ('Returns the merged PR') and an open-state precondition. It does not disclose side effects of merging, permission requirements, reversibility, or consequences for the source branch.

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 compact, front-loads the action, and every clause adds information: the OPEN precondition, the strategy options with default, and the return value.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the minimal return description and strategy list are insufficient for a 6-parameter mutation. Missing details include which strategy requires squashedCommitMessage, what the merged PR response contains, and any auth/state-change caveats.

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?

The schema already documents version, strategy, and squashedCommitMessage; the description adds default meaning for noFF and mentions a custom variant string, but that custom variant conflicts with the enum's closed value list. It also omits several enum values and leaves projectKey/repoSlug/id to be inferred.

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 opens with 'Merge an OPEN PR' — a specific verb and resource with a state precondition. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling decline/approve/update pull-request tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as bb_decline_pull_request or bb_update_pull_request, nor when to choose one merge strategy over another. The only hint is the 'OPEN PR' precondition.

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