create_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the behavior: creates a PR, requires user approval, and returns a success message with URL or error. It mentions defaults (head_branch defaults to current branch, draft default False). It does not detail side effects like CI triggers, but the essential behavior is clear.

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 well-structured with a critical workflow section and clear parameter explanations. It is somewhat long but every sentence is necessary for safe usage. Minor improvements could be made by condensing the workflow steps, but overall it's effective.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 4 required) and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the workflow, each parameter's role, and the return value. It also addresses prerequisite context (get_pr_context) and user approval, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, but the tool description adds significant meaning for each parameter: e.g., 'title: PR title (keep it concise, ~50 chars)', 'user_approved: REQUIRED - Must be True.' This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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's purpose: 'Create a pull request on the detected platform (GitHub/GitLab).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like commit_changes and review_changes.

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 a detailed step-by-step workflow, explicitly stating when to use the tool (only after user approval) and when not to (not in the same response as generating the description). It also names a prerequisite tool (get_pr_context) and includes critical warnings.

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