create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a pull request, without mentioning side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, or what happens on failure. For a mutation operation, this lack of depth leaves agents uncertain about consequences.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are already fully described in the schema.

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?

While the schema provides complete parameter documentation, the description lacks contextual information about when to use this tool and what behavioral expectations (e.g., draft support, required branches) exist. For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in usage and behavior context.

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 has 100% description coverage, meaning every parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema warrants a baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description is not required to compensate.

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 identifies the action ('creates') and the specific resource ('a new pull request in a repository'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like close_pull_request, update_pull_request, and merge_pull_request by using 'nuevo' (new), indicating creation rather than modification.

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. It does not mention that this is for creating new PRs, while update_pull_request is for existing ones, nor does it specify any prerequisites like branch existence. Agents would have to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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