Github Set Pr Draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the REST limitation and the GraphQL workaround, which is beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't detail side effects, but the idempotentHint covers the main concern.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the technical constraint is explained in one clause, and the workflow reference is a single line. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter boolean toggle, the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., the PR must exist), but that is implied by the resource naming and the workflow reference.

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%, with only the 'draft' parameter documented. The description clarifies the boolean semantics ('True puts the pull request back into draft, False marks it ready for review'), which adds value. However, repo_owner, repo_name, and pr_number are left undocumented in both schema and description, though their names are self-explanatory in context.

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 verb ('Moves') and resource ('a pull request between draft and ready for review'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like github_update_pr or github_create_pr. It also explains the REST/GraphQL distinction, adding precision about what the tool actually does.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to toggle draft status, and it notes that REST cannot do this after creation, so GraphQL is used. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow reference to github_get_skill('pr-management') provides additional guidance for the agent.

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