merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that close_source deletes the source branch and that strategy uses repo default, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention mutating nature beyond 'merge', possible reversibility, or required 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 a concise one-liner plus a structured argument list. Every line adds value with no filler.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers parameters and key behaviors. Output schema exists for return values. It lacks a note on usage context or side effects beyond close_source, so slightly incomplete for a mutating tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters. It adds meaningful details: strategy enumerates merge_commit, squash, fast_forward; close_source has default True; workspace/repo are slugs.

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 clearly states the action 'Merge a pull request', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_pull_request or decline_pull_request by focusing on merging.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The tool name and description imply it's for merging, but there's no guidance on when not to use it or comparison to related operations like update_pull_request.

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