update_pull_request

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

Discloses the auto-refetch and retry behavior on 409 conflicts, which is useful. However, with no annotations, more behavioral details (e.g., required permissions, side effects if PR not found) would improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence frontloads the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral detail. Every phrase earns its place.

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 7 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a mutation tool. It explains conflict handling but could mention the return value or additional side effects.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds specific context to the 'version' parameter (saves a fetch, auto-retry), which goes beyond the schema. No other parameters gain extra meaning from the description.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'pull request', listing the fields that can be modified. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pull_request, merge_pull_request, and decline_pull_request by specifying it is for an existing PR.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool (updating an existing PR) and includes a key usage detail about the version parameter for conflict prevention. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention specific alternatives beyond implied actions.

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