update_pull_request

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by explicitly rejecting a 'state' parameter and listing unsupported operations. It also labels the tool as 'WRITE' for emphasis. It could disclose more about side effects or error behavior, but the additional context is meaningful.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence delivers key constraints, and the final 'WRITE tool' reinforces the nature. It is efficient with no redundancy, though the 'WRITE tool' is arguably redundant with annotations; still, the structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain required parameters like 'repo' and 'pr_id', nor does it mention what the function returns on success or failure, or any side effects beyond the rejected state. Given the lack of schema descriptions and output schema, an agent would lack crucial details to use the tool reliably. More context about required inputs and expected results is needed.

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 must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It names four updatable fields (title, description, destination branch, reviewers) that map to schema properties, but it does not explain the required parameters 'repo' and 'pr_id', nor does it clarify 'workspace' or the rejected 'state' beyond noting rejection. Since the schema itself provides no descriptions and the description only partially compensates, the parameter semantics are insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a correct call.

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 verb 'Updates' with a specific resource ('pull request') and enumerates the exact fields it modifies (title, description, destination branch, reviewers). It also explicitly disclaims unsupported operations (merge, approve, decline), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_pull_request or get_pull_request. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for updating an existing pull request, not for merging, approving, or declining. It explicitly states that passing a 'state' is rejected, providing a clear when-not condition. However, it does not name specific alternative tools to use for those unsupported actions, so it stops short of the full when/alternatives guidance.

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