veto_pr_description

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

The description explains the tool reads 'git diff main...HEAD' and generates a PR description, which is consistent with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation. It adds context about the output being a complete description ready for pasting or posting. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality with specific outputs, the second gives usage instructions. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's inputs (git diff based on base branch), output sections, and intended use (pasting or posting). However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., a valid git repository) or failure scenarios. Given no output schema, the description adequately completes the picture but lacks some edge-case context.

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?

All four parameters are already described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the 'base_branch' default (main, via 'from git diff main...HEAD') and expanding on the 'context' parameter as 'ticket number, description, or motivation'. This provides additional usage context 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 uses the specific verb 'Generates' and identifies the resource as a 'complete GitHub PR description'. It lists the sections (title, summary, change list, test plan, breaking changes) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'veto_pr_post' by noting the output is 'Ready to paste into GitHub or post via veto_pr_post'.

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 usage guidance by stating the output is 'Ready to paste into GitHub or post via veto_pr_post', implying two workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'veto_pr_review' or 'veto_commit_message', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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