Update pull request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not warn that state='closed' effectively closes the PR, does not mention assignee replacement behavior, nor any auth/permission requirement. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 tight sentence with no padding and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance that is missing elsewhere.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with 38% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the assignees parameter entirely, does not explain the effect of changing state to 'closed', and gives no error or permission context an agent would need to invoke it safely.

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 38% across 8 params, so the schema does not fully document itself. The description names title, body, base and state, which maps to four parameters and signals intent, but omits assignees and gives no format or constraint detail (e.g. base branch naming). Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a pull request') plus the four fields that can be modified, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_pull_request and get_pull_request. It loses a point only because the field list is incomplete (assignees is omitted), making the scope statement slightly inaccurate.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as merge_pull_request, request_pull_request_reviewers, or update_issue. No preconditions (e.g. needing the PR number, permissions) are stated. Only the bare purpose is given.

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