set_pr_draft

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

Annotations already communicate mutation and idempotency; the description adds useful implementation context about GraphQL and the REST limitation. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a valuable implementation note. No fluff.

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?

Simple tool with only four parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering side-effect profile. The description explains purpose, behavior, and the API reason, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 add explicit parameter detail. However, repo_owner, repo_name, and pr_number are self-explanatory GitHub identifiers, and draft is already described in the schema. The description reinforces draft's role but adds little new meaning.

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?

Description states a specific action — 'Moves a pull request between draft and ready for review' — with a clear resource and direction. This separates it from siblings like merge_pr or create_pr, and from general update_pr.

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?

Provides clear context for when this tool is needed: toggling draft status after creation, and explains why GraphQL is used because REST only supports draft at creation. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is reasonably clear.

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