close_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. It mentions the action ('Close a pull request') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on the tool's impact would improve completeness.

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 description must compensate. It lists all three parameters (project, pr_id, namespace) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide detailed semantics like format examples or constraints, so it doesn't fully bridge 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 specific action ('Close a pull request') and distinguishes it from alternatives ('without merging'), which differentiates it from the sibling tool 'merge_pull_request'. It directly addresses what the tool does in a precise manner.

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 implies usage by specifying 'without merging', which suggests when to use this tool versus 'merge_pull_request'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives like 'comment_on_pr' for non-closure actions, leaving some guidance implicit.

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