Create PR

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

The description only restates the obvious write operation ('Create'), which is already implied by readOnlyHint=false. It adds no behavioral context about side effects, failure conditions, permissions, or what happens on conflict. With annotations already declaring non-idempotence and not read-only, the description contributes little beyond the structured metadata.

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, clean sentence with a front-loaded verb and no fluff. It is appropriately brief for a simple create operation, though its brevity limits the amount of useful context it could provide.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., git repo must be connected), what the function returns (PR URL or ID), or how failures are surfaced. For a mutation tool, this level of detail is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and brief descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight context that agent_id identifies the agent's repo, but it does not clarify branch name conventions, reviewer behavior, or the relationship between title and description beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (create), the resource (pull request), and the scope (between two branches of an agent's repo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_git_list_prs, lyzr_git_merge_branches, and lyzr_git_create_branch, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_git_merge_branches or lyzr_git_update_reviewers. It also omits prerequisites like needing an initialized repo or existing branches, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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