update_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Updates,' implying mutation, but does not state whether changes are reversible, require specific permissions, return the updated object, or affect related resources. This is completely opaque for a mutation 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, front-loaded sentence—concise and free of verbosity. However, it is so sparse that it under-specifies the tool's behavior, making it minimally adequate rather than a model of effective conciseness.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what properties can be updated, what the response contains, any prerequisites, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow of managing pull requests.

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 schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating the operation itself, which is redundant. Baseline 3 applies because the schema is sufficient.

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 'Updates an existing pull request' clearly states the verb (updates) and resource (pull request), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks any mention of which fields can be updated, which would further distinguish it from sibling tools like update_pull_request_comment or update_issue.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_pull_request for creating a PR or update_issue for modifying issues. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts are provided; usage can only be inferred as 'when you need to update a pull request,' which is tautological.

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