updatePullRequest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and lists fields; it does not disclose permissions, whether the update is partial or full, whether reviewers are replaced (though the schema hints at this), or what side effects changing destination_branch may have.

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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action and key editable fields. It earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits the required parameter, does not clarify partial-update behavior, and gives no indication of what the API returns or what conditions might cause failure, leaving an agent to infer critical context from the schema and tool name.

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?

The schema already documents five of seven parameters, and the description simply re-lists four of those field names without adding new semantic detail. It does not explain the required pull_request_id or the workspace/repo_slug identifiers, both of which lack schema descriptions, so the added value over the schema is minimal but not absent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('pull request') and enumerates the editable fields: title, description, reviewers, destination branch. It is distinguishable from the sibling create/get/comment tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with draft-state mutation tools like convertToDraft.

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 for modifying an existing pull request, and the sibling list makes it inferable that createPullRequest is for new PRs and getPullRequest is for reads. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or recommendation against using it for draft/approval state changes.

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