update_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Update' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if no optional fields are supplied. The arg note 'reviewers: ... to set' hints at replacement behavior but lacks broader context.

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 one-sentence purpose is concise, and the Args block is structured and readable. It is slightly longer than necessary but every line adds value by clarifying parameter meaning, which the schema lacks.

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?

The description covers all parameters and their purpose, but omits behavioral details like return value semantics (though an output schema exists), error conditions, or effects of changing destination branch. It is adequate for a straightforward update tool but not fully comprehensive given zero annotations.

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%, but the Args block adds meaningful descriptions for every parameter (e.g., 'pr_id: PR ID number', 'reviewers: Comma-separated reviewer UUIDs to set'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and clarifies optionality and format.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Update a pull request' and enumerates the updatable aspects (title, description, reviewers, destination). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pull_request or merge_pull_request.

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 purpose statement implies use when modifying an existing PR, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not reference alternatives like create_pull_request for creation, though the sibling list makes this inferable.

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