convertToDraft

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly conveys the core state change (open PR → draft) but does not mention error conditions, permissions, or what happens if the PR is already draft or not open.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and target state. It is concise and easily parsed, with no extraneous details.

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 tool is simple and the description communicates the main conversion behavior clearly. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description should ideally mention preconditions (e.g., the PR must be open and not merged) and basic caveats, which are only implied by the word 'open.'

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 33%, with only pull_request_id described. The description adds context to the general purpose but does not clarify the relationship between workspace, repo_slug, and pull_request_id, nor does it explain where to find these identifiers.

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 states a specific action—converting an open pull request to draft—with a clear verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool publishDraftPullRequest, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 this tool is for open pull requests that should be moved back to draft status, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over updatePullRequest or createDraftPullRequest. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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