mcp-github-project-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and lists the modifiable fields directly. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and fields but lacks critical context like behavioral traits, parameter details, usage guidelines, and response information. For a tool that modifies pull requests, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists the updatable fields ('title, body, or state'), which maps to 3 of the 4 parameters, but doesn't explain 'pullNumber' (the required parameter) or provide any syntax, format, or constraints for any parameters. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a pull request') with specific fields that can be modified ('title, body, or state'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_pull_request' and 'merge_pull_request' by focusing on modification rather than creation or merging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_pull_request' in terms of read vs. write operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pull request), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new pull requests), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'merge_pull_request'. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' but lacks explicit context.

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