create_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 usefully discloses that the result is a proposal requiring human review/approval rather than an auto-merge, but omits permission requirements, failure conditions (e.g. missing branch), and what happens after submission.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and scope come first. It is lean but arguably thin for the operation it performs.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to convey outcome and side effects. Here it omits return values, error behavior, and auth needs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 repository, title, body, and targetBranch. The description says 'main branch' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's default for targetBranch, 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 and resource ('Propose a Pull Request') plus the target scope ('to main branch'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_commit or create_branch. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unique among the git-related siblings.

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 'for human review and approval' implies it is the terminal step after committing/branching, giving implied usage. However, it never states when to use this versus create_commit or create_branch, nor any prerequisites such as an existing branch.

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