Merge pull request

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the base branch moves, which can trigger a deploy or CI, and deleteBranch removes the head branch afterward. These side effects are critical for an agent to understand before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The merge method details are front-loaded, followed by the important CI/deploy warning and user-consent requirement.

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?

The description covers the critical destructive side effects and consent requirement well. However, with five parameters and low schema description coverage, it could do more to explain the optional message parameter and confirm the role of repo/number.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains the method options and the default, plus the effect of deleteBranch, but it omits meaning for message, number, and repo beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Merge a Lizard Git pull request'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pr_create, pr_list, pr_show, and repo_commit by focusing on the merge action.

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?

Provides clear guidance to get the user's go-ahead first, which is important for a destructive operation. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but merge is a distinct action and no close sibling overlaps exist.

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