tea_pr_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (creating a PR) and introduces a preview mode that avoids creation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, failure modes, or what happens after creation (e.g., return value or side effects on branches).

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Create') and resource ('pull request'), and includes the key optional behavior. Every word earns its place with no padding.

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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It mentions the essential preview feature but leaves out context about how the tool behaves in detail, such as required parameters beyond title, how defaults work, or what a successful response looks like. It is adequate but not rich enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents all 9 parameters with clear descriptions. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the preview mode, which is already covered by the 'preview' param default. No additional value.

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 tool's primary action: 'Create a new pull request'. This is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tea_prs_list, tea_pr_view, and tea_pr_merge. The optional preview mode is also mentioned, adding clarity without ambiguity.

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 use for creating pull requests and mentions the optional preview mode for reviewing changes first. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other PR operations (e.g., merging, approving).

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