Create Draft Pull Request

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive (create). The description adds that draft PRs are not for review, but no additional behavior like authorization or side effects. Contradiction is false.

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?

Description is very concise: one-sentence summary, then an Args block with all parameters, and a Returns line. Front-loaded, no unnecessary text.

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 output schema (not shown but noted as present), the return value is covered structurally. The description covers the tool's action and parameters adequately, though it omits error conditions and branch existence assumptions.

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 coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It lists each parameter with a brief label (e.g., 'Source branch name') and some extras (default for workspace, list of UUIDs for reviewers). This adds meaning beyond the schema property 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 creates a draft pull request and distinguishes it from a regular PR by noting draft PRs are not ready for review. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'create_pull_request'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_pull_request). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info. The description only states the function.

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