Github Set Pr Draft

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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds a useful implementation detail—this goes through GraphQL because REST only accepts draft at creation—but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure modes.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the GraphQL route rather than repeating the action.

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?

For a simple four-parameter toggle operation with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance to prefer sibling update_pr for non-draft PR edits, which is minor.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented repo_owner, repo_name, or pr_number parameters. The draft parameter's meaning is already fully captured in the schema, so the description adds no meaningful parameter information beyond it.

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 states a specific action ('Moves a pull request between draft and ready for review') and clearly identifies the resource and the two possible states. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like github_update_pr, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to toggle an existing pull request's draft status. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, and the REST/GraphQL note explains the implementation path rather than how to choose between sibling tools.

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