veto_pr_description

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it generates from git diff main...HEAD, which is modest behavioral context. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the diff is empty, but no contradictions.

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?

Single sentence under 200 characters, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format and intended usage. It could mention prerequisites like existence of a git repo but is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema fields; it mentions the base branch default as 'main' but that's already in the schema description. The agent_response parameter is not elaborated.

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 generates a complete GitHub PR description from git diff, specifying components (title, summary, change list, test plan, breaking changes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_pr_post (posting) and veto_commit_message (commit messages).

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 mentions the output is ready to paste into GitHub or post via veto_pr_post, giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among the many PR-related siblings.

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