update_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. It only says 'updates' without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects of changing base/state, or implications for the pull request mergeability. This is a significant gap 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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, stating the main purpose directly.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, making the description the only source of context. It is too minimal for a 7-parameter mutation tool, omitting important details like the base branch update capability and the meaning of state transitions. This leaves the agent without necessary context for safe invocation.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description restates title/description/state but adds no extra meaning, and importantly does not mention the 'base' parameter even though it is part of the schema. Baseline 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 the tool updates the title, description, or state of a pull request, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like merge/close by indicating it's for general updates, though it omits the 'base' field which is also updatable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., close_pull_request, merge_pull_request). It does not mention that changing state to 'closed' accomplishes the same as close_pull_request, nor does it advise when to use it for base branch changes.

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