create_pull_request

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it verifies branch existence before creation and guarantees no partial PR is left behind. This is useful for an agent to understand side effects and failure behavior. The "WRITE tool" label is redundant with readOnlyHint=false but not misleading.

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 tight: two sentences that front-load the core action, state essential parameters, and add a behavior guarantee. Every sentence contributes value without padding.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema-level descriptions, this definition is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how workspace and repo relate, whether draft or closeSourceBranch have defaults, or how reviewers should be formatted. This is a sizable gap for an agent invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies title, sourceBranch, and destinationBranch, but omits the required repo parameter and gives no meaning for draft, reviewers, description, closeSourceBranch, or workspace. This leaves agents guessing about most of the tool's surface.

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 opening phrase "Opens a new pull request" names a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling update_pull_request because it states creation rather than modification, and from list_pull_requests because it performs an action rather than a query.

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 the correct use case: creating a new pull request. It also gives a prerequisite by naming required fields. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over update_pull_request or other sibling tools, and it omits the repo parameter that the schema marks as required.

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