tea_pr_merge

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Merge a pull request' implies mutation but does not state that merging is a destructive write operation, may require special permissions, or that it triggers CI/CD or permanently alters repository history. It also doesn't mention reversibility or whether a custom title/message can be supplied (though that's in the schema). This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing 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?

The description is a single, short sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's straightforward purpose, earning every word.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the default action. The schema documents parameters, but the description does not explain side effects, success/failure behavior, or how this relates to the PR lifecycle (e.g., should be used after approvals, not on closed PRs). The agent is left without enough context to use the tool safely or decide when it's applicable.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (repo, index, style, title, message), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, and the description does not degrade or improve that score.

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 'Merge a pull request' uses a specific verb ('merge') and a clear resource ('a pull request'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tea_pr_approve, tea_pr_reject, and tea_pr_create, which perform other PR-related actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., PR must be open, tests must pass) or situations where merging is not appropriate. The tool's purpose is clear but the description gives no usage context, unlike a well-documented tool that would state 'use this after approval' or 'do not use for draft PRs'.

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