create_pr

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purely functional. It does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering CI, notifications), required permissions, or potential failures (e.g., merge conflicts). With minimal annotation coverage, the description should carry more weight.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of omitting essential information. It does not front-load critical usage details, and every sentence should 'earn its place'—here, it barely does.

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 7 parameters (6 required) and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter guidance and usage context means the agent cannot reliably invoke this tool. The complexity of creating a pull request demands more thorough description.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meaning (e.g., what 'head' and 'base' refer to, or the role of 'draft'). This leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics.

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 is concise and directly states the tool's function: creating a pull request. It uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('pull request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'merge_pr' or 'update_pr_description'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create an issue instead of a PR, or prerequisites like branch existence. The presence of many sibling tools makes this lack of guidance a significant gap.

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