Set PR draft state

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the two-state behavior (draft vs. ready) but does not disclose additional context like auth needs, effects on existing state, or response shape. It aligns with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose and parameter usage. It contains no fluff or redundant wording, earning a top score.

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 tool's simplicity and the schema providing full parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks details on how to identify the PR (e.g., pr_id/workspace) but those are in the schema. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here since the action is a state change.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the 'draft' parameter by explaining true/false mappings, but this is already present in the schema property description. No additional parameter nuance is provided beyond the schema.

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 tool's specific action: 'Mark a pull request as draft or ready for review.' It uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('pull request'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_pr' by focusing solely on draft state. The directional semantics (draft true/false) are explicit.

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 when to use the tool (when toggling draft state) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like 'update_pr', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no 'when to use vs alternatives' text, which is a clear gap.

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