close_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies that the action does not merge the PR, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero redundant words. It effectively communicates the core action and the key distinction in a minimal format.

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?

The tool is simple with only 3 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the updated PR object or a confirmation) or any error conditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Cierra un pull request' (closes a pull request). The added 'sin mergearlo' (without merging) explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_pull_request, 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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to close a pull request without merging. It provides clear context for the operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., merge_pull_request) or state when not to use it. The 'sin mergearlo' clause gives a strong signal about its exclusive use case.

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