github_open_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the approval_id is consumed before the API call, raises PermissionError on invalid/missing approval, and validates repository allowlist, fork ownership, and PR body keywords. This goes well beyond a simple 'open PR' statement, though it does not cover all error conditions or post-success behavior.

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 well-structured with a short intro, a list of validations, and a clear prerequisite. However, the sentence 'Delegates to the underlying GitHub API implementation' is filler and adds no value. Otherwise, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no annotations) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the core purpose and some validations but omits crucial contextual details. It does not explain the workflow placement (e.g., after request_approval and fork setup), the meaning of repository slugs, branch naming conventions, or the behavior when validations fail. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only adds meaningful semantics for approval_id (consumed, required) and body (must not contain auto-close keywords). Parameters like upstream_repo_slug, fork_repo_slug, base_branch, head_branch, title, and draft are left entirely to their names, which may not be self-evident. This is insufficient for such a parameter-heavy tool.

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 'Open a pull request on GitHub' with a specific verb+resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like github_find_prs_for_issue (which searches) and github_ensure_fork (which ensures a fork exists). The inclusion of validation criteria further clarifies the tool's precise function.

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 states the prerequisite that a valid approval_id is required and lists validation checks (allowlist, fork owner, body keywords), which implies when it should be used (after approval and fork setup). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving usage guidance partially implied.

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