Update Pull Request

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotence (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the critical behavioral detail that the reviewers parameter replaces the entire reviewer list, a non-obvious side effect. This goes beyond annotations, though no further behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 structured as a docstring with an Args list, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized, with no superfluous sentences. The mandatory warning for reviewers adds necessary detail without bloat. Slightly more conciseness could be achieved, but it is well-organized.

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 six parameters, two required, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers input parameter meanings and usage. It does not detail return values, but the output schema fulfills that role. No coverage of error conditions or permissions, which are acceptable omissions for this tool's scope.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all six parameters. It clarifies that workspace defaults to the configured workspace and provides a crucial warning for reviewers (replacement behavior, retrieval advice, clearing). This is essential for correct tool invocation.

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 'Update a pull request' with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like create_pull_request, approve_pull_request, and decline_pull_request, this tool is distinctively about updating an existing PR, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance for the reviewers parameter, including a warning that it replaces the list and instructions to retrieve current reviewers via get_pull_request. However, it does not offer broader context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, which prevents a higher score.

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