update_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a partial update (unmentioned fields preserved) or whether omitting a field clears it, nor auth requirements, reversibility, or any side effects such as reviewer notifications. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical field list is largely redundant with the schema.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: partial-vs-full update semantics, required permissions, and expected result are all unstated. An agent cannot call this confidently without inferring behavior.

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 schema already documents pr_id, workspace, repo_slug, title, description, and reviewers. The parenthetical field list mirrors the schema without adding format or constraint detail (e.g., reviewer UUID semantics beyond the schema note), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update') plus resource ('an existing pull request') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent can separate it from get_pull_request, merge_pull_request, approve_pull_request, etc. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'an existing' implies the PR must already exist, but there is no statement of when to choose this over merge_pull_request, approve_pull_request, request_changes, or decline_pull_request, and no prerequisites (permissions, PR state). Usage is only implied.

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