create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success. The close_source parameter hints at merge behavior, but the tool's own behavior is opaque—for example, whether it validates branches or requires certain permissions.

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 one sentence plus a compact argument list. Every line provides useful information; no fluff. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, prerequisites (e.g., workspace/repo must be valid), and behavioral expectations. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the tool's role in the PR workflow is not contextualized.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args list with concise explanations for each parameter, clarifying formats (e.g., comma-separated UUIDs) and defaults (e.g., dest_branch default 'main'). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new pull request.' This is a specific verb plus resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_pull_request or merge_pull_request. The action is unambiguous and the resource is named.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states the basic action; no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer another PR tool. The need to specify workspace and repo is implied but not explained.

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