create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action ('Creates') but does not disclose authentication requirements, whether the operation fails if a PR already exists, what happens to existing refs, or any other side effects. It is minimally informative but far from complete.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it omits essential information, making the conciseness feel more like under-specification than efficient communication.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the tool has six parameters with zero schema coverage and no annotations. The description fails to compensate by explaining parameter semantics, prerequisites, or behavior. For a create operation with this many inputs, it is substantially incomplete.

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% for all six parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Critical fields like 'head', 'base', 'owner', and 'repo' are left entirely unexplained, including which are required and what format they expect. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new pull request') plus the platform ('Gitea repository'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. Sibling tools include other create operations but no other pull-request creation, so explicit sibling differentiation is not needed. The only gap is that scope details like owner/repo are not mentioned.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist), and no mention of related operations like create_branch or commit_files. It simply declares what it does without any contextual routing.

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