Create PR

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the schema, such as branch default behavior, Markdown interpretation, and the requirement for UUIDs with curly braces. This provides useful context on how the tool behaves in different scenarios.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Each clause adds necessary detail about defaults, Markdown, and reviewers, with no fluff. It is a single dense sentence that earns its length.

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?

While the description covers purpose and parameter details, it leaves a gap about how the tool identifies the repository when not run from a checkout. Only 'title' is required in the schema, and the description does not clarify whether workspace/repo can be inferred or are necessary in other contexts. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect 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 100%, and the description largely echoes schema descriptions (e.g., default branches, Markdown). It adds a small nuance about 'when run from inside a checkout' and 'configured main branch,' but this is marginal. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all parameters well.

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 opens with 'Open a new pull request,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_pr or get_pr. This explicitly states what the tool does and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 context is clear: it creates a new PR, as opposed to the other siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives. The defaults for branches provide useful context, but the description could have stated 'use this instead of update_pr' or similar.

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