merge_pr

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

The description only states 'merges' without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., closing the PR, updating branch), failure conditions (merge conflicts), or required permissions. Annotations provide minimal safety info (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so description should compensate but does not.

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, but it sacrifices critical information for brevity. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place as it omits needed detail. A slightly longer description would improve utility without losing conciseness.

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 (6 params, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the merge process, return value, prerequisites, or limitations. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the 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 description adds no meaning to the 6 input parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters like commit_title, commit_message, and merge_method, but it fails to do so. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify usage or required vs. optional fields.

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 'Merges a specific pull request' clearly states the verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools (no other merge tool). However, it lacks specificity about the merge scope (e.g., into base branch) and does not differentiate from other PR action tools beyond the action itself.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., write access, mergeability) or scenarios where it should be avoided. Sibling tools like update_pr_branch could be confused without context.

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